administrative history
CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS FORT MATANZAS
NATIONAL MONUMENTS/FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY OF CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT AND FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT
by Jere L. Krakow
July 1986
United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service CONTENTS
Acknowledgements / v Chapter 1: War Department Administration, 1866-1914 / 1 Preservation Sentiment / 1 Growth of Tourism-Castillo / 4 Indian Incarceration / 6 ' Maintenance And Preservation / 7 Budget And Designated Appropriation / 8 Concern For Fort Matanzas / 9 Chapter 2: War Department Administration, 1914-1933 / 13 Government Initiatives / 13 First License-St. Augustine Historical Society / 14 Caretakers Brown And Davis / 16 Commercialization / 18 Surplus Forts / 21 Stabilize And Restore Fort Matanzas / 22 Declared National Monuments / 23 Quartermaster Department Management / 24 Management Controversy / 28 Competition For License, 1928 / 31 Final License, 1933 / 36 Chapter 3: The National Park Service: Administration 39 Tenure Begins / 39 Kahler Administration / 39 Freeland Administration / 51 Vinten Administration / 52 Roberts Administration / 59 Davenport Administration / 61 Schesventer Administration / 63 Aikens Administration / 65 Griffin Administration / 67 Chapter 4: The National Park Service: Programs and Relations / 69 Interpretation / 69 Special Events And Visitors / 79 Research / 83 History / 83 Archeology / 88 Natural Resources / 91 Race Relations / 91 Chapter 5: The National Park Service: Problems And Prospects / 95
Appendices / 101 A: Proclamation by President Calvin Coolidge Declaring National Monument, October 15, 1924: Fort Marion, Fort Matanzas / 102
iii B: Executive Order No. 6228: National Monuments to Be Administered by the National Park Service, July 28, 1933 / 101 C: Name Change: Fort Marion to Castillo de San Marcos, June 5, 1942 / 107 D: License to St. Augustine Historical Society and Institute of Science, April 16, 1928 / 109 E: Superintendents, 1933 to Present / 113 F: Senior Historians, 1938 to Present / 115 G: Annual Visitation / 117 1. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument January 1916 to July 1925 / 119 July 1935 to December 1984 / 119 2. Fort Matanzas National Monument January 1937 to December 1984 / 123 H. Summary of Federal-City Relations 1819-1955 / 126
Bibliography / 135 Illustrations / 141
iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Returning to a place associated with pleasant memories after some twenty years is to raise forgotten and dormant feelings. Such has been the case for the author who spent one summer as a Seasonal Ranger-Historian at Fort Matanzas National Monument and through an unusual set of circumstances, returned to write an administrative history of it and Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.
In the course of research and writing a number of individuals and institutions have contributed to the effort including: B.J. Griffin, Superintendent of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas national monuments; Chief Historian Edwin C. Bearss and Bureau Historian Barry Mackintosh, Washington, D.C., National Park Service; first Chief Historian of the National Park Service Verne E. Chatelain; first Superintendent of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas national monuments Herbert E. Kahler; Martha B. Aikens, former Superintendent of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas national monuments, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.; Chief Librarian David Nathanson, Harpers Ferry Center, National Park Service; Frederick C.K. Babb, Chief, Branch of Planning, Eastern Team, Denver Service Center; Jacqueline McCraw, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument; Robert M. Kvasnicka, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; Jacqueline K. Fretweil, St. Augustine Historical Society, St. Augustine, Florida; Ruth A. Larison, Librarian, Rocky Mountain Region, National Park Service; David Nolan, St. Augustine, Florida; Professor Thomas Graham, Flagler College, St. Augustine, Florida; John C. Paige and Louis Torres, Historians, Denver Service Center; Mary Lou Weakland, National Park Service, Denver Service Center; and the staffs of Norlin Library, University of Colorado-Boulder; the National Archives and Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.; and the St. Augustine Historical Society, St. Augustine, Florida.
Two individuals who maintain high scholarly standards deserve special thanks for their significant contributions to this study: Jerome A.
v Greene, Supervisory Historian, Southeast/Southwest Team, Denver Service Center, for support, advice and counsel from beginning to end; and Luis R. Arana, venerable Staff Historian, Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas national monuments, National Park Service, for arranging work space, access to research files, editorial advice, encouragement and in numerous other ways contributing to this effort.
At the suggestion of Superintendent B.J. Griffin a final chapter has been included which seeks to identify problems foreseen by the turn of the twenty-first century. The intent is to address concerns from the past so to assist future management of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas.
vi vii viii ix X The Castillo de San Marcos from the southwest, 1967.
Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument
Fort Matanzas, southeast quadrant, July 23, 1968.
xi CHAPTER 1: WAR DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION, 1866-1914
When the United States assumed control of military installations at St. Augustine, Florida, during the summer of 1821, something over two centuries had already been jointly logged by the venerable Spanish fortifications of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas. Begun in 1672 and 1740 respectively, the coquina-walled structures symbolized the power and influence of the Spanish empire. For Castillo the change in management brought forth an effort to maintain and stabilize a structure needing repairs. The fortress conveyed a sense of the past, unknown and perhaps mysterious though it might be to the new managers. With rainwater leaking through the terreplein into vaults used as quarters and storage, cracks in the water battery wall and other aspects in need of preventative maintenance, the War Department as new custodian found much to occupy its attention.(1)
PRESERVATION SENTIMENT
Between 1821-1844 St. Augustine received varying amounts of monies appropriated by Congress with some being used at the Castillo and much going for repair on the city seawall. (2) At the same time the War Department changed the name of the Castillo to Fort Marion and defined through presidential order which specific buildings belonged to the city
1. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Conservation And Reutilization Of Castillo de San Marcos And Fort Matanzas," by Luis R. Arana, (St. Augustine, Florida: Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, 1984), (unpublished) pp. 2-3 (hereafter cited as Arana, "Conservation And Reutilization"). A Spanish version of this paper has been published in Puertos y Fortificaciones en America y_ Filipinas, Actas del Seminario 1984 (Madrid: CEDEX y CEHOPU, 1985), pp. 171-182.
2. Ibid., pp. 4-6.
1 and to the Department.(3) Castillo belonged to the latter. From early on an appreciation for aesthetics and historical significance of Castillo de San Marcos captivated War Department officials and visitors alike. In 1833 Judge Robert R. Reid declared to Joseph M. White, the Tlorida congressional delegate, that "No one can see the castle or fort, as it is called . . . without admiration and regret. "(4) The construction followed classic European fortification design but the whole entity seemed destined to ruin because of neglect. Thus began an ongoing concern for maintenance by federal managers from the nineteenth century to the present.
During the Civil War Fort Marion did not see action. In January of 1861 Confederate troops peacefully took possession of the post, however, in March of the following year Union forces once again assumed command. (5) When the war ended Castillo did not fit into plans for the coastal defense system. Authorities contemplated using it as a military prison; in time American Indian tribal members from the plains and southwest found themselves incarcerated there.
The companion fortification fourteen miles south at Matanzas Inlet suffered far greater neglect. Fort Matanzas, visited by First Lieutenant Henry W. Benham of the Engineers in 1842, had begun to return to dust. Several cracks ran the length of the tower, tides undermined a portion of the terreplein and most of the sentry box had disappeared.(6) The resulting
3. Ibid., pp. 2-3. Fort Marion was named for Francis Marion, Revolutionary War General from South Carolina. 4. Ibid., p. 4. 5. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Historic Structure Report For Castillo de San Marcos National Monument St. Johns County, Florida by Edwin C. Bearss and John C. Paige, (Denver: Denver Service Center, 1983), p. 256 (hereafter cited as Bearss and Paige, "Historic Structure Report," CASA).
6. Luis R. Arana, "Notes On Fort Matanzas National Monument," El Escribano, Volume 18 (1981), pp. 49, 52 (hereafter cited as Arana, "Notes").
2 report by Benham did not result in any action; deterioration continued until repairs began in 1916. By that time the old fort looked like a low mass overgrown with vegetation.(7)
A lengthy record of observations about the historical significance of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas national monuments exists for the period 1821-1914. Many observers (local citizens, politicians and military personnel) commented on the values associated with the two military posts. Identified in the documents of the nineteenth century are statements of tribute to the Spanish heritage in the New World. It began with Judge Robert R. Reid in 1832 who advocated repairs for "the preservation of this great work" (the Castillo) so that it would receive the same attention as the Spanish crown devoted to it. (8) Likewise in 1834 the Florida Legislative Council on behalf of St. Augustinians sought monies for "the repair and preservation of Fort St. Marks."(9) After the Civil War many individuals expressed their opinions about the historical significance of the two military posts. By this period the War Department had declared both as unimportant to coastal defense of the United States. Often as not observers pointed out the need to preserve and restore the structures so to prevent continued deterioration. However, several military personnel, local citizens, politicians and tourists proclaimed in a variety of ways the importance of saving the Castillo. They judged that it held "great interest to our people," and should be preserved for its historical value.(10)
7. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Photograph on file at Castillo de San Marcos National Monument (hereafter cited as CASA), 1912. 8. Ibid., p. 47. 9. Ibid, p. 82.
10. Arana, "Conservation And Reutilization," p. 9.
3 GROWTH OF TOURISM—CASTILLO
During the mid-nineteenth century tourism increasingly developed at St. Augustine as more and more northerners for reasons of health and recreation traveled to Florida. Another use for Castillo began to develop; it attracted many visitors and this strengthened arguments for preserving the structure. As early as 1848, Rufus K. Sewall writing for travelers and invalids, advised that, "The Castle is a place of chief and universal attraction to the curious stranger."(11) In a similar vein other writers advocated visiting the fort. Wiliam Cullen Bryant complimented Lieutenant Henry Benham for his desire to preserve the remains of the structure. (12) Other travel accounts note stops made at the Castillo by visitors to St. Augustine.(13) Several Florida guide books commented on the general scene, the aesthetics of Fort Marion, its many embellished stories and the guided tours through it. (14) From the mid-nineteenth
11. R.K. Sewall, Sketches Of St. Augustine (New York: George P. Putnam; reprint ed., Gainesville: The University Presses of Florida, 1976), p. 15. 12. William Cullen Bryant, Letters Of A Traveler; Or, Notes Of Things Seen In Europe And America (New York: George P. Putnam, 1850), p. 112. 13. Amelia M. Murray, Letters From the United States, Cuba And Canada (New York: G.P. Putnam & Company, 1856), p. 224; A Winter From Home (New York: John F. Trow, 1852), p. 24. 14. Ledyard Bill, A Winter In Flordia (New York: Wood and Holbrook, 1870), pp. 160-161; Daniel G. Brinton, A Guidebook Of Florida And The South, For Tourists, Invalids And Emigrants, With A Map Of The St. John River (Philadelphia: George Maclean, 1869; reprint ed., Gainesville: The Bicentennial Floridiana Facsimile Series, 1978), pp. 68-69; D. Egan, The Florida Settler, Or Immigrant's Guide (Tallahassee: Office Of the Floridian, 1873), pp. 115-116. Constance Fennimore, "The Ancient City, Part I, Harper's New Monthly Magazine, December 1874, pp. 10-13; "Rambler," Guide To Florida (New York: The American News Company, 1875, reprint ed., Jacksonville: Floridiana Facsimile and Reprint Series, 1964), pp. v, 107-115; Sylvia Sunshine (pseud):, [A.M. Brooks]. Petals Plucked From Sunny Climes (Nashville: Southern Methodist Publishing House, 1880), pp. 188-189; George M. Barbour, Florida For Tourists, Invalids, And Settlers (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1882; reprint ed. Jacksonville: Quadricentennial Edition of the Floridiana Facsimile and Reprint Series, 1964, pp. 104-106.
4 century on visitors had the opportunity to take tours through the Castillo. Scattered references document such services provided by the War Department at St. Augustine, beginning in 1848 with Sewall, who spoke of guide service. (15) Likewise, others including Bryant noted being "taken into the ancient prisons of the fort—dungeons; "(16) Daniel G. Brinton infers a tour guide pointing out an escape route for Seminole prisoners;(17) Ledyard Bill, and the "Rambler" spoke of following a military guide; (18) Harpers New Monthly reported "a wild melee of information" by the "old sergeant in charge; "(19) Sylvia Sunshine commented about being taken to view prison rooms and inscriptions on walls;(20) and Thomas Graham's Anderson family history documents tours led by Sergeants George M. Brown and McGuire.(21)
Caretakers at Fort Marion had a difficult time meeting demands placed on them by visitors to the site. Wanting to permit entry, provide tours, protect the resource and look after War Department property in the casemates put much pressure on them, given other duties related to maintenance and grounds. Scattered references to the number of visitors, though overestimated, bespeak the popularity of the fort. (22)
15. Sewall, Sketches of St. Augustine, p. 15.
16. Bryant, Letters of a Traveler, p. 103. 17. Brinton, A Guidebook, p. 69.
18. Bill, A Winter, p. 161; "Rambler," p. 107. 19. Harpers, New Monthly Magazine, p. 11. 20. Sunshine, Petals Plucked, p. 189. 21. Thomas Graham, The Awakening Of St. Augustine: The Anderson Family and the Oldest City 1821-1924, (St. Augustine, Florida: St. Augustine Historical Society, 1978), pp. 198-199. 22. Captain, Corps of Engineers to Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C., June 17, 1910, Box 1-10, CASA, notes that perhaps 50,000 visitors pass through the Castillo in 3-4 months; Chief of Engineers to Chief Quartermaster Corps, March 19, 1913, reports 100,000 visitors each year;
5 The fact of tour guide availability, plus general access, provided by the War Department as early as 1848, documents the historical significance the Army gave to Castillo de San Marcos. Visitor demand and the historical attractiveness of the fort in combination with commanders' proclivities toward posterity set the stage for the eventuality of national monument status. Much deliberation and decisionmaking remained to be accomplished but the elements of preservation had been established well before the turn of the century.
INDIAN INCARCERATION
Far to the west the last major group of American Indians surrendered to American authorities in 1886. Transported to and incarcerated at Fort Marion, the western Chiricahua Apaches became an object of curiosity. The Castillo became a military prison once again. Tourists in St. Augustine had not only the Spanish fort to visit but could view the last remnants of a raiding band of American Indians. Because of heavy demand, however, policy for admittance to the fort did change to one of special permit only. (23) Likewise townspeople, particularly children, became infatuated with Apaches. Often observed from a distance, the Indians did, on occasion, peddle trinkets in St. Augustine or demonstrate their proficiency with bow and arrow on the fort glacis.(24) According to Captain Richard Henry Pratt, Army officer and educator, those in
22. (Cont.) Ladue to Chief of Engineers, April 29, 1915, estimates 20-25,000 visitors since January 1, 1915. The figures when compared to the visitor count begun by the St. Augustine Historical Society in 1916 are too high as the latter show incomplete tallies of 11,609-23,631 visitors between 1916-1917 (see Appendix G). However, it is doubtful the Society counted everyone, rather they recorded the number of visitors on tours for which they charged 10 6 charge of fori Marion encouraged white and Indian interaction through visitation. (25) For Pratt it represented dispelling of prejudice and, at bottom line, the beginning of assimilation of the native. (26) MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION During the remaining third of the nineteenth century the War Department came more and more to value the preservation of the Castillo de San Marcos and, to a far lesser extent, Fort Matanzas. An examination conducted by Captain William H.C. Whiting of the U.S. Engineer District Office at Savannah led to a recommendation "to prevent any further dilapidation of this venerable fortress, ... a relic of the most ancient domination on this continent [and] ... a place of much historic and military interest. "(27) Whiting went on to add that, though natural processes contributed, most serious deterioration occurred because of human threats. Concomitant with a growing desire for preservation of the two military posts there developed over the years a significant facilities-maintenance program. With establishment of a military reservation in St. Augustine in 1821, which included Castillo de San Marcos and the immediate surrounding land, administration by the War Department began. Throughout the nineteenth and into the twentieth century, upkeep and maintenance, though important, became as significant as restoration and preservation. This transition from active military post to national treasure began with extensive building of the seawall in the 1830s, along with attention to cleanup and policing of the structure and grounds. From 1833 to 1866 much needed maintenance 25. Richard Henry Pratt, Battlefield and Classroom: Four Decades With the American Indian, 1867-1904, ed. by Robert M. Utley (New Haven:" Yale University Press, 1964), p. 120. 26. Ibid. p. 120. 27. St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, Whiting to Lieutenant Colonel R.E. DeRussy, May 6, 1859. Box 25, Corps of Engineers, War Department Records. 7 occurred under the direction of Lieutenants Stephen Tuttle, Francis S. Dancy, Henry W. Benham, Jeremy F. Gilmer, and Captain William 11.C. Whiting. This work included resurfacing the terreplein, repairing and cleaning the casemates, constructing the water battery and shot furnace, and extending and repairing the seawall. (28) BUDGET AND DESIGNATED APPROPRIATION Following the Civil War a rather lengthy period of inactivity passed before additional projects received attention. In 1868 Major Quincy A. Gillmore reiterated the attraction the site held for antiquarians and Senator Thomas W. Osborn spoke of the "historical value" of the structure. (29) A similar theme received expression by Michigan Governor Charles M. Crossland in 1877, and three years later by the commander of St. Francis Barracks in St. Augustine.(30) Finally, Congress appropriated monies for preservation and repair in 1884 and 1888 specifically for Fort Marion and in 1890 for coastal fortifications in general, from which the post received several thousand dollars.(31) Of all the congressional actions, the most significant one occurred in 1884 when President Chester A. Arthur signed into law an appropriation of $5,000 for restoration and preservation of the Castillo. Preceding the Casa Grande preservation action by almost five years, it established a little known precedent for the expenditure of federal monies to preserve an historic structure. (32) 28. Bearss and Paige, Historic Structure Report - CASA, pp. 63-261: C. Craig Frazier (Denver: National Park Service), November 26, 1984, unpublished time line. 29. Bearss and Paige, Historic Structure Report - CASA, pp. 267-268. 30. Ibid., pp. 282-283. 31. Ibid., pp. 291-293, 327-329, 333-343. 32. Ibid., p. 293; Thomas F. King, Patricia Parker Hickman and Gary Berg, Anthropology In Historic Preservation: Caring for Culture's Clutter (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 15; Barry Mackintosh, "Administrative History as a Management Tool," Trends, Volume 20, Number 2, 1983, p. 28. 8 Not only money, but plans from the Spanish Archives, became available to restore the structure to its condition when the Spanish left in 1821.(33) Repairs to the Castillo from the appropriation included work on the ramp, walls, southwest bastion and terreplein. (34) Out of the 1890 funding came money for completion of repairs to the terreplein, walls and gun platforms. These repairs and those of 1890-1891 when more terreplein improvements and landscaping occurred, especially on the glacis, fell within the category of preservation and restoration. This post-Civil War action continued to gain momentum in the twentieth century. CONCERN FOR FORT MATANZAS Playing a subordinate role to the Castillo from inception, Fort Matanzas nevertheless began to be noticed more as the nineteenth century came to a close. A tourist brochure for St. Augustine included a photograph of Matanzas and the accompanying text noted, "Its ruins are among the most picturesque in Florida . . . [and] well worth the journey to behold. "(35) In addition, the military reservation became something of an issue after the United States assumed control because it lacked delineated boundaries. A watchtower on sand banks served as a description of Matanzas until First Lieutenant George P. Scriven's report in 1885. Scriven determined the island belonged to Florida, but this interpretation changed in 1893 when the Jacksonville District Engineer, Captain William M. Black, received information that the land had never been 33. Arana, pp. 9-10. 34. Bearss and Paige, Historic Structure Report - CASA, pp. 296-297. 35. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "The War Department Years, 1821-1933," Historic Structure Report For Fort Matanzas National Monument St. John's County, Florida by Edwin C. Bearss (Denver: Denver Service Center, 1980), p. 92 (hereafter cited as Bearss, "The War Department Years"). 9 transferred. (36) The original land base incorporated into the reservation consisted of "the entire group of marsh islands lying in portions of Sections 14 and 23 in the Matanzas River. "(37) At the same time, the state of disrepair of Fort Matanzas became a concern because of several reports. The 1877 orders given by the District Engineer to Captain James C. Post, referred to boundary concerns; however, the report noted the fort is "rapidly passing into a mass of ruins. "(38) The extensive survey by Lieutenant Scriven documented conditions of the Matanzas watchtower and the report provided architectural design and gave detailed measurements of the entire structure. Notably, it gave an assessment of historical significance, it being "a relic of the Spanish heritage" and by implication worthy of being preserved.(39) Scriven also made recommendations for minor repairs of its present form and stated that it no longer served any military value. The most concentrated effort to preserve Fort Matanzas occurred in 1890 when Representative Robert M.I. Bullock of Florida introduced legislation for that purpose. District Engineer Black advised the congressional committee that work on the structure needed to be done soon or else it would be destroyed. It remained for twentieth century managers to act on preserving Fort Matanzas; the committee did not report out the bill. During the first decade of this century Floridians advocated repair and preservation of Fort Matanzas. In 1906 and 1909, respectively, Senators James P. Taliaferro and Duncan Fletcher had their attention drawn to the 36. Arana, "Notes," p. 55. 37. Ibid., p. 59. 38. Post to Q. A. Gillmore. October 22, 1880. NA RG 77. Letters Received, Chief Engineer. 39. Bearss, "The War Department Years," p. 101. 10 problem. (40) Both found that budgetary restraints and priorities for needed defensive works superseded repair of obsolete military posts. Matanzas again came up in 1910 when Florida Congressman Frank Clark drew up a bill which sought to preserve the fort and provide for a caretaker. Though the bill died, in 1911 Representative Clark again submitted a draft bill to protect and preserve a structure "of considerable historical and architectural interest."(41) This, too, died. During Woodrow Wilson's first term as president another bill to preserve the fort surfaced. Sponsored by the Florida delegation, it met the same fate as the others. Nationalistic arguments and the fact that it might set the wrong precedent combined to still the effort once more. In 1915 Fort Matanzas, clumped with Fort Marion and other obsolete defense installations, obtained unauthorized historic monument designation by the Secretary of War under the 1906 Antiquities Act. 40. Bearss, "The War Department Years," pp. 105-106. 41. Ibid., p. 107. 11 CHAPTER 2: WAR DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION, 1914-1933 During the period 1914-1933 the War Department continued to administer Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas, though effective day-to-day operations for visitors at Castillo became the responsibility of the St. Augustine Historical Society and Institute of Science. A steady flow of visitors to Florida, and a boom of emigrants during the 1930s caused an increase in tourists at St. Augustine, many of whom visited the Castillo (see appendix G). For a fee, tour guides provided service at the fort, and a souvenir shop operated by William J. Harris sold several different items to visitors. As word about financial incentives spread around the community several groups began to covet the arrangement the Historical Society had with the War Department. The competition spawned contentiousness and rancor. Meanwhile, preservation of the two military posts continued to be espoused, notably in actions by the Congress, by the Secretary of War in 1915, and by the President of the United States who in 1924 declared them national monuments. Local residents and townspeople alike lobbied effectively for preservation and restoration. However, continued deterioration of Fort Matanzas prompted further investigation and, finally, authorization of monies to restore the structure. With a broader base and national monument status, interest seemed more pronounced for the two forts. Castillo and Fort Matanzas, significant principally for their Spanish heritage, would thus be preserved and maintained for generations to come. GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES A variety of legislative actions and executive orders promulgated near the turn of the century had significance for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas national monuments. These acts primarily concerned the Castillo and involved boundary changes or right-of-way for railroad lines. In July and September, 1890 the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Halifax Railway Company and the St. Augustine Street Railroad Company, 13 respectively, received permission to cross federal lands in St. Augustine. (1) In March of 1907, Congress granted the St. John Power and Light Company right-of-way for a street railway; the same Congress conveyed land known as "The Lines" to the city for school use. (2) For purposes which served to assist in managing them, Matanzas and Castillo benefited from the 1906 Antiquities Act. Circumventing the sometimes cumbersome process of Congress, the act allowed the President to set aside sites of scientific, prehistoric, and historic interest. The two Florida posts made important gains toward restoration and preservation under the 1906 Act. By proclamation, the Secretary of War, acting beyond his authority, designated the two as national monuments on July 17, 1915. This effectively recognized what had occurred during War Department administration as various managers, visitors, and local residents espoused the historical significance of the lengthy Spanish presence in St. Augustine and vicinity. Though they remained national monuments in fact, legally they obtained the status in 1924 when President Calvin Coolidge declared them so; Fort Marion consisted of 18.09 acres and Fort Matanzas of one acre. (3) FIRST LICENSE--ST. AUGUSTINE HISTORICAL SOCIETY Prior to the national monument designation by the Secretary of War, the St. Augustine Historical Society and Institute of Science in 1914 sought permission to lease and manage the Castillo. A fire had decimated much 1. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, "History of Legislation Relating to the National Park System Through the 82nd Congress," by Edmund B. Rogers, (Washington: 1958) pp. 1-2. The Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Halifax Railway Company subsequently became the Florida East Coast Railroad. 2. Ibid., p. 2. 3. By the President of the United States of America: A Proclamation, RG 92, NA, Quartermaster Department, CASA files. 14 of the city including the structure which housed the Society collections. In seeking the arrangement with the War Department the President of the Society, DeWitt Webb, sought five rooms on the north side of the fort including the chapel for storage and exhibits: permission to license guides who would lead tours of the fort for a fee; the right to sell post cards, photographs, and souvenirs; to exhibit specimens illustrating resources of Florida; and to have the fort open from sunrise to sunset. (4) In return for the privileges the Society agreed to maintain that portion of the fort it occupied or had access to and devote energy to enlightening the public about science, Florida history and resources. Visitors, Webb added, would be "admitted free wherever it is safe to go without guides. "(5) After several exchanges of correspondence between the district engineer in Jacksonville and the office of the Chief Engineer of the Army in Washington the Society received the license. An agreement dated November 20, 1914, between the parties specified responsibilities and requirements. (6) The Secretary of War reserved several rights to insure maintenance, open access and quality of guide service. For the latter the Historical Society charged 10 cents per person for a tour of one-half hour duration. The fee spawned criticism when it became known that the guides received $1.50 salary per day and the rest of the proceeds constituted income for the Society. (7) Part of the disenchantment extended to the curator, William J. Harris, who received 20% of the proceeds in return for his services on behalf of the Historical Society. In addition, Harris received 75% of the proceeds from the sale of 4. DeWitt to Ladue (District Engineer, U.S. Engineer Office), June 17, 1914, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. Ladue to Chief of Engineers, Washington, O.C., March 26, 1915, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 15 postcards and other- items which he sold at the souvenir stands in the Society's exhibit rooms. (8) For Harris the arrangement complemented his photographic enterprise which effectively monopolized sales at the Castillo and also in the wider community of St. Augustine. This served as a bone of contention for years. CARETAKERS BROWN AND DAVIS Other problems arose which related to the fees charged. Complaints against tour guides cropped up because of their desire to lead all visitors on tours so to enhance the visit and the coffers of the Historical Society, their employer. The dispute gave rise to contentions with Sergeant George M. Brown, caretaker, who had responsibility for security of certain rooms, but who found keys to those rooms distributed to tour guides who made them accessible to the public. The matter received the attention of the District Engineer who decided that the keys would be made available to guides or visitors who preferred to go through the fort on their own. Keys to rooms of greatest interest could be checked out of the caretaker's room (Sergeant Brown), and visitors who appeared interested and honest could use the keys as could the guides. (9) This of course reduced the potential hucksterism of the guides to pressure all visitors to pay the fee in order to gain entrance to locked rooms. Sergeant Brown became caretaker (custodian) of the Castillo and Fort Matanzas in February 1908 replacing Ordnance Sergeant Robert E. Pate who transferred to Habana. Assigned duties for this position principally included caring for government property stored in the rooms (casemates) of Fort Marion, securing the facilities at closing time, attending to visitors and overseeing and reporting on maintenance needs at either Fort 8. Ibid. 9. Ladue to Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C., April 29, 1915, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 16 Marion or Fort Matanzas. Numerous duties and responsibilities kept him busy and on occasion complaints surfaced and had to be addressed, such as one from a Jacksonville resident to United States Senator James P. Taliaferro. Sergeant Brown, said the complainant, needed to attend to his duties better because to lock certain casemate doors kept visitors not in a formal tour group from access to rooms such as the dungeon. (10) A rather thorough investigation, including sending a staff member and his family from the District Office in Jacksonville to Fort Marion for purposes of clandestinely investigating Brown and tempting him with payment for his services cleared the Sergeant of any wrongdoing.(11) The popularity of the Spanish fort placed heavy demands on the caretaker who did not always please visitors and whose duties included leading tours on occasion. Brown did find time to author a popular historical guide to the fort. At the entry of the United States into World War I Brown died and the fort closed because of lack of a caretaker. Public pressure on the District Engineer reopened the fort, but because of perceived German threats guards checked all visitors parcels, cameras and satchels upon entry, and were ordered "to turn back any who appear . . . doubtful."(12) Implementing the new policy as temporary caretaker, William F. Brown, son of George M., carried it out until rescission in August, 1917.(13) Brown, a veteran of the Spanish American War, received the permanent appointment with compensation of $40 per month and quarters in exchange for minor repairs, care and preservation of 10. Acheson to Taliaferro, undated (circa, 1910) War Department Records, CASA, Box 1-10. 11. Captain, Corps of Engineers to Chief of Engineers, May 13, 1910, War Department Records, CASA, Box 1-10. 12. Ladue to Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C., April 11, 1917, War Department Records, CASA, Box 1-10. 13. Ibid. 17 Fort Marion. (14) Last in a series of caretakers, Leslie L. Davis, served in that capacity until the abolishment of the position in February 1929.(15) He, like Brown, had to share responsibility for the post, following the contract drawn up with the St. Augustine Historical Society in November 1914. Contentions inherent in the arrangement arose periodically for all parties concerned with the operation of the Castillo; Fort Matanzas came exclusively under the domain of the caretaker. COMMERCIALIZATION Sergeant George W. Brown complained in 1915 following the contract with the Society that commercialization had developed through selling of souvenirs and the fee for tours.(16) The commercial activities produced income for William J. Harris, Curator of the Historical Society, who became the focus of much rancor through the duration of the Society's management at the Castillo. Local residents added weight when they complained of the commercialization of the fort, the quality of guides and the competition souvenir shops in St. Augustine had with the sales outlet of the Society. (17) Upon investigation by the District Engineer's office, the conclusion reached supported the validity of the activities as drawn up in the agreement with the Society.(18) Profits seemed the root of 14. District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C., April 27, 1917, October 19, 1917, War Department Records, CASA, Box 1-10. 15. Van Duyne to Davis, February 13, 1929, RG 79, NA. 16. Brady to Glenn, February 5, 1915, War Department Records, RG 79, NA. 17. Ransom to Sackett, April 14, 1917, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25; Usina to Fletcher, October 26, 1917, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25: District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, November 20, 1917, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 18. District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, November 10, 1917, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 18 much of the complaints. The issue would not die however, and again in 1922 another investigation occurred. Investigator First Lieutenant Herbert B. Loper of the District Engineer's office reported, "a certain private party is obtaining the majority of the proceeds from the sale of souvenirs at Ft. Marion, . . . [and] the Historical Society . . . derives only a small portion of the proceeds therefrom. "(19) More complaints on this occasion found their way to the War Department in the form of individual letters and a petition from souvenir shop operators in St. Augustine. These issues took much energy to hammer out as lines seemed drawn and various individuals used as much influence as could be mustered in supporting their position. Local attorney E. N. Calhoun appealed to Senator Fletcher to seek an annual appropriation for upkeep and thereby eliminate the commercialization which he observed at the fort. (20) Seven individuals signed a petition sent to the Secretary of War seeking permission to sell merchandise at the Castillo because they felt existing arrangements consisted of an "unfair trade abuse. "(21) Harris, meanwhile, appealed to the District Engineer and had conferences with the Secretary of War in order to preserve the existing license. He took the high ground and spoke about the loss of revenue for the Historical Society to the detriment of the Castillo and the work of the Society there. (22) As a result of several months of exchange an agreement secured most of what the major parties to the arrangement sought, although the dissenters against Harris did not. Henceforth, the 19. Office, District Engineer to Adjutant General of the Army, August 5, 1922, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 20. Calhoun to Fletcher, December 8, 1922, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 21. Petitioners to Weeks, no date, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 22. Harris to District Engineer, July 23, 1923, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25; District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, July 28, 1923, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 19 curator of the Society would continue his commercial advantage over others in St. Augustine; all postcards for sale and display items needed prior approval of the District Engineer; visitors would be permitted to decide what to pay for a guided tour instead of the previous charge of ten cents; the Society would pay $500 for the privileges of maintaining "the entire reservation in a state of police and sanitation" and make some minor repairs to the fort. (23) Promulgated in 1923, the agreement was to run until December 31, 1925, and could be renegotiated for up to three years.(24) Combined in the assessment of agreements of this time, the St. Augustine Golf Club consented to redraft the document (first drawn in 1902) which permitted them to use the military reservation east of San Marco Drive and north of Fort Marion Circle. In the agreement they would pay $200 per year for maintaining the grounds to the satisfaction of the District Engineer and be permitted to construct three sand greens and three tees.(25) This arrangement continued until the summer of 1925 when the club disbanded and the maintenance of the grounds had to be assumed by the caretaker, William F. Brown.(26) As part of the agreement the club had to replace the greens, take out tee boxes and replant areas to grass. President of the club J.L. Ketterlinus indicated a wilingness to pay restoration costs on his own so that the grounds could be properly maintained, and not be cared for by the city as some desired.(27) 23. Memorandum of Agreement, 1923, War Department Records, CAS A, Box 25. 24. Ibid. 25. License, St. Augustine Golf Club, 1923, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 26. District Engineer to Brown, May 7, 1925, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 27. Ibid. 20 SURPLUS FORTS Somewhat concurrent with the issues involved in the commercialization of Castillo, an outside threat served to unify efforts and marshal support for the two national monuments. In May of 1921 word got around that Secretary of War John W. Weeks had declared several military posts (including Castillo and Fort Matanzas) no longer of value and, by implication, up for disposal. Vocal opposition came from many quarters including the Florida chapter of the Colonial Dames of America who lobbied Senator Fletcher to act on behalf of those who desired the posts be preserved as "historical relics."(28) District Engineer Major William C. Lemen protested the recommendation, stating: To allow a spot so intimately connected with the history of this country to pass into the hands of private parties or to be controlled by state or municipal authorities would, it is believed, outrage public sentiment in a manner somewhat similar to what would follow the suggestion that Washington's Monument or Arlington Cemetery be disposed of. (29) Subsequent testimony came from other War Department personnel who cited the national monument status granted in 1915 to both forts and the uniqueness of both in the history of the United States. A year later while on a visit to St. Augustine the Secretary of War told St. Augustine residents the Castillo and Matanzas (the latter by inference) would not be disposed of but instead preserved for their historical value.(30) 28. The Florida Metropolis, June 11, 1921, CASA, Files. 29. District Engineer to Chief Engineer, July 15, 1921, War Department Records, RG 79, NA. 30. District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, July 21, 1922, War Department Records, RG 79, NA. 21 STABILIZE AND RESTORE FORT MATANZAS Throughout the period 1914-1933 maintenance of the two Spanish forts drifted along as a restrictive fiscal policy made such work difficult, since neither any longer had military significance. Securing a land base and restoring the structure became the most important objectives for Fort Matanzas. In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson signed an executive order that set aside lands south of the main channel of the Matanzas River; most of the islands consisted of marsh.(31) The same year DeWitt Webb, President of the St. Augustine Historical Society, successfully appealed to the House Appropriation Committee to provide money to restore a deteriorating Fort Matanzas.(32) Army Chief of Engineers Brigadier General William M. Black, former District Engineer at St. Augustine and preservation proponent of the Spanish forts in the 1890s, allotted $1,025 from a $25,000 appropriation to preserve obsolete coastal fortifications.(33) During late 1916 and early 1917 a major effort to stabilize and restore Fort Matanzas occurred; this included removal of vegetation, rebuilding the arch, drawing the tower together with rods and assorted other repairs.(34) World War I ended the expenditure for several years but the restoration stabilized the structure for the time being. Preservation of Fort Matanzas surfaced again in 1922 when a requested report from General Black recommended that the fort be preserved because of its historical significance.(35) Estimates of the cost of restoring the structure varied from $10,000-$25,000; however, the 31. Edwin C. Bearss, "The War Department Years," pp. 112-113. 32. Ibid., pp. 113-114. 33. Ibid., pp. 112-116. 34. Ibid., pp. 116-118. 35. Office of Chief of Engineers to District Engineer, July 26, 1922, War Department Records, CASA, Box Fort Matanzas 2-3. 22 estimate in 1922 reported that repairs could be done for $4,200.(36) Authorization to begin followed word of available funds in the fortification section budget and local craftsman Bud Deyo, who had done the restoration work in 1916, again received the contract. The work consisted of rebuilding the south wall, adjacent gun platform, flooring of the upper story and constructing a boat landing for visitors. (37) A final task resulted in a layer of oyster shells being spread around the base of the fort. DECLARED NATIONAL MONUMENTS During the fall of 1924, President Coolidge declared Forts Matanzas and Marion, under authority of the 1906 Act, along with Forts Pulaski, Wood and Castle Pinckney to be national monuments. Effective January 23, 1925 the administration of the two became the responsibility of the Quartermaster General, however, from the Chief of Engineers.(38) The new department did not have funds available to pay the caretaker's salary until a transfer of funds could be made from the Corps of Engineers. (39) During the course of changing the administration of the two monuments the office of the Quartermaster General asked for a state of condition report for Forts Marion and Matanzas.(40) District Engineer Gilbert A. 36. District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, August 8, 1922, War Department Records, CASA, Box Fort Matanzas 2-3. 37. Office of District Engineer to Deyo, March 14, 1924, War Department Records, CASA, Box Fort Matanzas 2-3. 38. Chief of Engineers to the Adjutant General of the Army through the Quartermaster General, August 3, 1925, War Department Records, RG 79, NA. 39. Quartermaster Corps to Chief of Engineers, July 8, 1925, War Department Records, RG 79, NA. 40. Office of Quartermaster General to Chief of Engineers, February 19, 1925, War Department Records, RG 92, NA; District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, March 5, 1926, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 23 Youngberg provided some detail to the questions posed and recommended additional items of maintenance to restore the posts; he also endorsed Brown as a competent individual to continue as caretaker, including supervision of the national cemetery. (41) The transfer became fully complete on January 1, 1926, when Leslie L. Davis replaced William F. Brown as Superintendent of Fort Matanzas, Fort Marion and the St. Augustine National Cemetery. The War Department, in meeting its responsibilities as manager of several new national monuments, began to formalize procedures for maintenance and upkeep. Cost estimates, budget considerations and private sector support from the St. Augustine Historical Society served to underscore budget planning efforts of the department. Typically, personnel costs absorbed the major share of the budget; however, repair budgets received a few hundred dollars each year which, when supplemented by Society contributions, supported restoration and care of the two posts.(42) QUARTERMASTER DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT Certain changes effected by the War Department occurred in 1925 when the Quartermaster Department became the manager of the national 41. District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, March 11, 1925, War Department Records, RG 92, NA. 42. District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, May 21, 1925, War Department Records, RG 92, NA; Office of Quartermaster General to Commanding Officer Jeffersonville Quartermaster Intermediate Depot, June 2, 1926, National Park Service Records, RG 79, NA; L. L. Davis to Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Intermediate Depot, June 7, 1926, National Park Service Records RG 79, NA; Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Intermediate Depot, June 26, 1926, National Park Service Records, RG 79, NA; L. L. Davis to W. H. Mills, October 5, 1926, National Park Service Records RG 79, NA; Commanding Officer Quartermaster Depot to Quartermaster General, February 4, 1928, National Park Service Records, RG 79, NA. 24 monuments. Redrawn legal documents between the Historical Society and the War Department reflected the change and instead of a quarterly fee being charged, the contract stated that the Society should expend for maintenance the value of the former fee. (43) A summation of conditions and past actions furnished by the District Engineer informed Quartermaster Department officials about Fort Marion. (44) Staff, contractual arrangements, management responsibilities, reservation property lines and assessment of the management by the St. Augustine Historical Society made up the bulk of the report. The section on property lines detailed a variety of issues from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, especially the matter of the north boundary line encroachments by private owners and the proposed establishment of Clinch Street from San Marco to the Matanzas River. The Clement, Spalding, Post, and Black boundary surveys, as they bear on the north boundary in particular, were laid out, and Youngberg cited a publication which detailed licenses and leases for Fort Marion. (45) The final section presented a rather objective view of the dissatisfaction certain residents of St. Augustine held toward the licensing arrangements between the War Department and the Historical Society; most of the discontent was directed toward William J. Harris, curator and recipient of most of the proceeds from the sale of postcards and other souvenirs.(46) Because of superior quality postcards, even the other shopkeepers competing with Harris stocked his line of cards, thus he controlled much of the market. Youngberg concluded that, "Mr. Harris is deserving of 43. District Engineer to Chief of Finance, July 25, 1925, War Department Records, CAS A, Box 25. 44. District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, March 5, 1925, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 45. Ibid., p. 5. The document title: "United States Military Reservations, National Cemeteries and Military Parks," prepared by the Judge Advocate General, United States Army, 1916. 46. Ibid. 25 credit in that he has been extremely influential in arousing interest in and preserving structures and places of great historic interest. "(47) Nevertheless, he went on to recommend that Congress supply funds so that the Castillo might be operated and cared for much like the Washington Monument. (48) Concomitant with the change from Engineers to Quartermaster Department administration, the local Chamber of Commerce appointed a committee to determine how the city might acguire control of the military reservation of Fort Marion for a park and recreation facility because the golf club had disbanded. Alerted by Curator Harris of the Historical Society, District Engineer Youngberg recorded his opposition to anyone but the government managing the two monuments. (49) He officially sidestepped the issue when he replied to the city manager that the Quartermaster General would assume "active charge of Fort Marion and Reservation on July 1, 1925," and therefore "delay consideration . . . until further detailed information" was received. (50) The request fell by the wayside in the change of administration from one department to another. Davis received the Quartermaster Department appointment as superintendent of the monuments plus the cemetery and the Society successfully sought a renewal of its contract with the government. (51) Challenges to the Society increased in the next few years as various interest groups sought the government contract to manage the monuments. 47. Ibid., p. 6. 48. Ibid. 49. Harris to Youngberg, May 1, 1925, War Department Records, Box 25, CASA; note of Youngberg, no date, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 50. Youngberg to Masters, June 20, 1925, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 51. Colee to Youngberg, May 25, 1925, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25; Memorandum for files, August 13, 1925, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 26 The new contract, of July 1, 1925, carried out. the requirement that the Historical Society not pay a fee but instead invest no more than $700 per year in maintenance and upkeep of Fort Marion plus "keep the reservation in a sightly condition at all times satisfactory to the Quartermaster- General. "(52) The fee arrangement changed due in part to increased argument and contentiousness as profits of the Society, and especially Harris, came more and more to the fore. Another factor that prompted change related to the new administration of the areas and the combination of factors complicated the role of the caretaker. Soon to be fired, Caretaker Brown expressed uncertainty to the inspector as to his role in spending money for maintenance and his increased responsibility delegated by the Quartermaster General. (53) The latter problem turned more complex since the Historical Society would henceforth spend money for maintenance and its local manager, Harris, had some autonomy for expenditures under the new contract. Many elements came into play in implementing the new arrangements. After more than a year on the job, Caretaker Leslie L. Davis reported the inspector, had done a satisfactory job and judged both military posts in a very satisfactory condition. The mixture of expenditures from the Society and the government for maintenance seemed quite adequate and the caretaker said "the agreement works satisfactorily and to the mutual benefit of . . . the government, the Society, and the public. "(54) Though the inspector believed the Society provided a considerable benefit, to the public he expressed reservations about the propriety of a group profiting from a national monument, and advised that much thought be given to the arrangement when considering a new license. (55) 52. Memorandum for files, August 13, 1925, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 53. Office of the Inspector to Inspector General, November 13, 1925, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 54. Office of the Inspector to Inspector General, September 29, 1927, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 55. Ibid. 27 Management Controversy Less than a month after the inspector's report, Davis expressed more direct opinions about the management of the monuments. Echoing whal previous caretakers expressed, he stated opposition to the matter of the Castillo being operated "absolutely for profit. "(56) He wrote that expenses totaled $5,290.00 while conservatively estimating gross receipts of the Society at $15,739.50.(57) By canceling the agreement the tradeoff would be a budget of about $9,000 which the federal government would have to assume. Davis added that a transitional period might be tried until federal budgeting was attained; his estimate of the shared cost required $3,500 from the Society. (58) He added several other suggestions for ostensibly improving the operation, among them improved working conditions for guides who labored 365 days each year with an occasional half day off or time without pay; benefits such as minimum salary and paid vacation; and controls on depictions and format of postcards, booklets and pictures. Further, he urged that "all trash, such as human bones, stuffed cats, and birds and like materials and curios, be removed from the museum. "(59) Davis also appealed for a room in an east casemate equipped with benches, chairs and tables so that older visitors might have a place to sit and write. (60) Concurring with the recommendations of both the inspector and the caretaker, Quartermaster Depot Commander John R.R. Hannay sought reconsideration of the agreement when the contract expired on June 30, 1928.(61) At the 56. Davis to Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Depot October 21, 1927, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 57. Ibid. 58. Ibid. 59. Ibid. 60. Ibid. 61. Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Depot to Quartermaster General, October 28, 1927, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 28 request, of the Quartermaster General he sought and received from Davis detailed expenses for the Castillo from 1926-1928 and, based on them, urged an expenditure of $3,000 per year be required in the new license. (62) Hannay concluded that earning profits did not suit the purpose for establishing national monuments. (63) The entire situation at St. Augustine bore some resemblance to deteriorating relationships between nations: a catalytic event set off charges and countercharges or even hostile actions. A mix of dual management, strong-willed personalities, rumors of profits made at the Castillo, and the renewal of a license brought forth a storm beginning in 1928. The location of a tool house triggered events that led to Davis being relieved of his duties and to a rise of competition between interest groups for the management of the two national monuments. Davis' desire to locate a tool house adjacent to the Castillo wall became the issue taken up by the Colonial Dames. During the course of construction an article appeared in the local paper which expressed opposition to the location of the structure near the Spanish fortification. Motivation for this may have come from the curator and the vice president of the Society who, according to Davis, heard the new renewal contract would require $3,000 in maintenance annually. Angered, the two officers apparently influenced an employee who followed through with the newspaper article and also called an officer of the Colonial Dames. (64) The Dames investigated and met with Davis who reported an inquiry about relocating the tool house and the commercialization of the fort by the Historical Society. (65) 62. Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Depot to Quartermaster General, December 12, 1927, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 63. Ibid. 64. Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Depot to Caretaker, January 12, 1928, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Caretaker to Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Depot, January 18, 1928, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 65. Caretaker to Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Department, February 16, 1928, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 29 Satisfied with the explanation of why the particular location, the delegation from the Dames reported, "they had been used to pulling Harris' chestnuts out of the fire."(66) A side issue in the contentions between the principals involved the firing of a tour guide by Harris who gave as the reason the fact that she had supplied information about sales to Davis; she also stated that the vice president of the Society told her Davis would be fired too with the Colonial Dames as protagonists. (67) Later in the spring a flurry of telegrams and letters exchanged hands as Harris and Harold Colee, Vice President of the St. Augustine Historical Society, sought a decision from the Quartermaster General about Davis' requiring that doors be left unlocked at the Castillo. (68) Harris and Colee represented the matter as harassment while Davis characterized it as an experiment to permit visitors a leisurely examination of the casemates and dungeon instead of seeing them in just a few brief minutes each, since the entire tour took only 20 minutes. Davis saw the complaint as vindictiveness motivated by profits since the unlocked rooms could be visited free by those not on a guided tour; however, his superiors countermanded the experiment. (69) In a letter Davis reported that an olive branch was extended to him by Colee who, in front of two witnesses, said, "that [Frederick S.] Vail and Harris had been submitting [him] to a process of malicious persecution. "(70) Colee, said Davis, 66. Ibid. 67. Caretaker to Commanding Officer, January 18, 1928, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 68. Harris to Quartermaster General, May 17, 1928, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Colee to Quartermaster General, (telegram and letter) May 19, 1928, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Depot to Caretaker, May 21, 1928, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 69. Caretaker to Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Depot, May 25, 1928, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 70. Ibid. 30 would retract "all complaints heretofore made regarding me," a fact, that Colee denied in the investigation conducted by the Inspector General's Department during the fall of 1928.(71) COMPETITION FOR LICENSE, 1928 The skirmishes noted above in part preceded and ran concurrently with the main focus of 1928, the application for and negotiation of the management of the two national monuments. Davis, in a communique to the quartermaster in March, wrote that the Spanish-American War- Veterans Organization in which he held a membership had applied to manage the monuments. (72) The situation appeared rife with conflict and is precisely what happened as events played out with the Historical Society, Quartermaster Department, Harris, and Davis. During the summer the Quartermaster Department awarded a five-year license to the St. Augustine Historical Society to manage Fort Matanzas and Fort Marion. Because their application had been passed over, the United Spanish War Veterans meeting in state convention in late June, passed a resolution criticizing the Society as a commercial enterprise controlled largely by one person, curator William J. Harris. They further resolved to seek the support of the national organization at their meeting in Habana.(73) Because of previous clashes between Davis and Harris a variety of obstacles had to be overcome by the Quartermaster Department through the summer and fall. Caretaker Davis framed a variety of questions for the Quartermaster staff seeking clarification of, and in some instances being obstructionist to, the Society's management as outlined in 71. Ibid.; Inspector to Commanding General Fourth Corps Area, November 27, 1928, p. 3, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 72. Caretaker to Commanding Officer, February 16, 1928. 73. Ibid. 31 the license. (74) The new license required more of the Society: maintenance of the grounds, minor repairs, at an annual expenditure not to exceed $3,000. As caretaker, Davis had few responsibilities, requiring inspection duties, serving as an extra guide when necessary and providing access to the Castillo at all times (see Appendix D). The license, as had the previous ones, lacked clarity pertaining to the responsibilities between the caretaker and the curator. With the return of Harris to St. Augustine from his summer home in New Jersey, acrimony and back-biting resumed more directly with Davis. However, the major development concerned the alleged involvement of Davis in the attempt by the United Spanish War Veterans to oust the Historical Society as managers of the two monuments.(75) Appointed investigator, Colonel Henry S. Wagner carried out the charge between November 9-26, for the Commanding General, Fourth Corps Area, Fort McPherson, Georgia. (76) During the investigation Wagner called several witnesses from the Historical Society including Colee and Harris; the past and present commanders of the United Spanish War Veterans; and, of course, Davis. The rancor between Davis and Harris evidenced in the investigative report illustrates the depth to which the affair had fallen once the Society got word of the increase in fees required of it in the new license. At the request of the department, Davis sleuthed out information on financial returns to the Society and Harris; however, his methods and subsequent statistics lacked credibility, though that remained unknown until the investigator actually examined the books. (77) Of note, 74. Caretaker to Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Intermediate Depot, July 23, 1928, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Caretaker to Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Intermediate Depot, August 20, 1928, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 75. Inspector to the Commanding General, November 27, 1928, National Park Service, RG 79, NA, p. 1. 76. Ibid. 77. Ibid., pp. 2-7. 32 the department did base the increase from $700 to $3,000 on figures supplied by Davis. In February, the Quartermaster Department ignored a request of the caretaker to make "a complete investigation of the disagreement between himself and the officers of the Society."(78) The impasse worsened and reached the nadir in November as the two principal figures sought support for their positions and opportunities to denigrate each other. Unfortunately for Davis, he possessed neither the political power base nor the will to refrain from entangling himself. This ultimately resulted in the investigation. Conclusions reached in the report show that Davis unequivocally used his position as a member of the United Spanish War Veterans to oust the Historical Society from management of the national monuments, so to secure it for the veterans organization.(79) Wagner, the investigator, pointed out the caretaker allowed "personal animosities" to cloud his judgment and serve to strain relations; and on a positive note, included Davis' recommendation of the Society being required to submit a financial report annually to the War Department. (80) A final conclusion took note of the care given the monuments and grounds by Caretaker Davis and the Historical Society, a revealing insight of the importance each attached to the resources in their joint care and responsibility. Wagner closed with a statement recommending that Davis be informed of the conclusions reached and that the books of the society and Harris be audited by a certified public accountant and both file a report "for each fiscal year."(81) For Harris it represented weathering yet another storm of criticism without being washed out of the operation of the Castillo. As for Davis, he found himself relieved of duties as caretaker of the monuments effective March 1, 1929. The War Department concluded the position unnecessary 78. Ibid., p. 4. 79. Ibid., p. 11, 80. Ibid. 81. Ibid. 33 and therefore reduced the position to only superintending the St. Augustine National Cemetery .(82) Accordingly, the Quartermaster Department adjusted the lease with the Historical Society to reflect that Curator Harris managed the entire operation subject to regulation and review by the department. The arrangement served throughout the remaining years of the War Department administration until the National Park Service assumed full responsibility in 1935. Under the new lease arrangement with the St. Augustine Historical Society, annual reports had to be filed from audits made of receipts and disbursements pertaining to income on sales and tour fees at the Castillo and expenditures for maintenance at both national monuments. Income came from the sale of postcards, photos and souvenirs which the Society and Harris split 20 percent and 80 percent respectively. (See Table 1.) In addition the Society and Harris divided up the receipts from the Guide Service, 75 percent and 25 percent, respectively, to the Society and Harris, if the vistors desired tours. As the trend shows in Table I, the severe drop in travel to the St. Augustine area worsened because of the Great Depression which prompted Harris to ask the Quartermaster General for permission for "the organization to commercialize a little further than 82. Assistant Quartermaster Corps to Assistant Chief Clerk, War Department, January 26, 1929, Quartermaster Department, RG 92, NA; Commander, Jeffersonville Quartermaster Depot to Caretaker Davis, February 13, 1929, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 34 Table I A Comparison of Receipts and Expenses for the Operation of Guide Services and Souvenir Sales at Fort Marion and Fort Matanzas Florida, 1929-1934(83) Year 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 Receipts Gross—Guide Services $10,325 $11,816 $10,136 $ 7,299 $ 3,777 $ 6,553 Gross--Souvenir Sales 9,708 9,781 7,745 5,146 3,424 4,129 Total Gross Receipts 20,033 21,597 17,881 12,445 7,201 10,682 Expenses Guide Salaries—Society 3,399 3,220 3,662 3,293 2,224 2,090 Miscellaneous--Society 290 884 493 463 936 873 Maintenance--50/50 1,224 1,479 1,440 1,081 839 787 Wholesale price--curator 5,825 5,869 4,647 3,088 2,054 2,477 Clerk--curator 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,260 1,260 728 Fort Matanzas--maintenance -- 370 12 12 10 -- Net Receipts Historical Society 5,383 5,974 4,275 2,206 - 63 2,382 William J. Harris, Curator 2,470 2,730 1,922 1,053 - 50 1,342 83. Statement of Operation, 1929-1934, I.L. Clarke, Public Accountant, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 35 before, because at the present time they were running behind. (84) The reply noted "the main reason for the government giving the lease to their organization was to keep away from commercializing a government, activity. . . ."(85) Of course, given the arrangement of sharing income and expenses, Harris stood to gain from any revisions which would increase receipts. FINAL LICENSE, 1933 The renewal of the lease for administering the two national monuments continued, beginning with direct lobbying of the Quartermaster Department in early 1932. Expiration of the lease with the St. Augustine Historical Society would occur June 30, 1933, and direct efforts to obtain the lease would begin by at least March of 1932.(86) A conference that month hosted by the Assistant Secretary of War initiated by the chairman of the Republican Party in Florida, R. E. L. Pryor, lead off lobbying efforts to secure the lease. Several Florida politicos accompanied Pryor but the key figure at the conference, J. Ray Arnold, Florida entrepreneur, directed the discussions. He proposed "to organize a corporation for the development and exploitation of historic points in Florida, the first one being Fort Marion. "(87) Arnold did not want St. Augustinians to know of his intent until after he had already secured control of the fort. (88) Having done so, it would represent the first step and cornerstone of an effort to control several other historic sites in 84. Quartermaster General to Fourth Corps Area Commander, June 9, 1933, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 85. Ibid. 86. Construction Division, Quartermaster General Department to Quartermaster General, March 18, 1932, Quartermaster Department, RG 92, NA. 87. Ibid. 88. Ibid. 36 Florida, all for commercial purposes. During the summer of 1932 a variety of proposals submitted to the Quartermaster Department reflected once again the competition for and contentiousness of various groups in St. Augustine. By far the most professional package received came from Arnold who proposed restoring of the Castillo to the seventeenth century period, floodlighting the monument at night, and placing exhibits in the various casemates, all with the intent of enticing many more tourists to St. Augustine and returning a profit from admission fees of at least six percent for the investor group. (89) Several other groups also sought the license for the two national monuments including the St. Augustine Chamber of Commerce. For them administering the sites held promise for attracting more tourism to St. Augustine and the Castillo which served as a focus for local pride. To the Quartermaster Department the request had all the trappings of a commercial venture, particularly because it inferred subletting the administration to a second party. Once again the United Spanish War Veterans requested the license on grounds that revenue belonged to a patriotic organization. State Republican Chairman Pryor had been active in earlier requests for the veterans organization, though in 1932 he supported Arnold's request. The Spanish War Veterans directly indicated that if they obtained the license it would mean additional votes for the Hoover administration. (90) The American Legion actively pursued the license, though they indicated a willingness to sublet from the St. Augustine Chamber of Commerce should the latter obtain it.(91) Of course the most controversial applicant and longtime licensee sought a renewal: The St. Augustine Historical Society and Institute of Science. The Society had a lengthy and satisfactory reputation for administering 89. Quartermaster General to Assistant Secretary of War, September 22, 1932, Quartermaster Department, RG 92, NA, p. 2. 90. Ibid., p. 3. 91. Ibid. 37 the monuments though their major focus had always been on Fort Marion. Although they and the curator made a profit each year with the exception of 1933, the resources had been rather well taken care of and visitors continued to seek out the Spanish fort. Nevertheless, many complaints surfaced year after year synonymous with Curator Harris and commercialization. As the Great Depression worsened some felt the Society did not exercise enough social consciousness, given its savings account and that it had too exclusive a membership. (92) Upon the recommendation of the Quartermaster General, Assistant Secretary of War Frederick H. Payne approved the renewal of the existing lease during the fall of 1932 in favor of the Historical Society.(93) For the Society it would be the final lease on the monuments because the National Park Service fell heir to them in 1933 and began exclusive operations in 1935. William J. Harris, very nimble and adept, survived the change and retained the souvenir shop at the Castillo in the change from the War Department to the National Park Service. 92. Ibid. 93. Ibid., p. 4. 38 CHAPTER 3: THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: ADMINISTRATION TENURE BEGINS Unlike the initial establishment of federal presence in a community, the transition in agencies administering the national monuments of Fort Matanzas and Castillo de San Marcos went quite smoothly. Prompted by Executive Order 6166, a transfer of administrative responsibilities from the War Department to Interior Department occurred August 10, 1933, for national monuments, military parks, battlefield sites and cemeteries. The National Park Service became new custodian of the various areas including those in Florida. For St. Augustinians national presence did not create conditions to which adjustments had to be made; from the very beginning with the establishment of the Spanish outpost the community had related and adjusted to government policies and a certain decentralization of decisionmaking. Kahler Administration President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought a variety of ways to stimulate the American economy during his first term in office. These included broader powers for the Executive Branch, which Congress provided in March 1933, and subsequently in Executive Order No. 6166, consolidation of administrative functions for National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations, dated June 10, 1933.(1) Scheduled to go into effect in sixty-one days, the order obtained specificity on July 28, when Executive Order 6228 interpreted that cemeteries and parks should be included.(2) 1. Executive Order, Organization of Executive Agencies, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1933)., pp. 203-205. 2. Ibid., pp. 205-207. 39 Forts Marion and Matanzas thereby came under jurisdiction of the National Park Service which assumed responsibility on August 10 of that year. The Historical Society Curator, William J. Harris, continued on as custodian as he had done since the termination of Leslie L. Davis in 1929, and formalization of the arrangement commenced in December with Harris' remuneration set at $12 a year.(3) At this same time Verne E. Chatelain, first chief of the Historical Division of the Park Service had charge of the transfer papers between the War Department and National Park Service. He assigned Herbert E. Kahler from Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park to St. Augustine as the first Park Service representative. (4) Chatelain recalls that Chickamauga Superintendent Richard B. Randolph needed personnel with secretarial skills at the time and since Kahler could not type the other "historical technician" remained at Chattanooga.(5) To facilitate administrative organization Randolph found himself in charge of not only the Tennessee-Georgia battlefield but some ten other federal holdings, including Matanzas and Marion, after the parks and monuments transfer took place.(6) Therefore Kahler continued to be supervised by Randolph but at a distance. More directly his supervision came from Chatelain, with whom he shared graduate history training at the University of Minnesota, study which served both of them well in the history-rich area of St. Augustine. 3. Ibid., Arana, "Notes On Fort Matanzas," p. 68. 4. Interview with Verne E. Chatelain, February 26, 1985; U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Tape Number 232, Transcript of Oral History Interview of Herbert E. Kahler by Albert Manucy, Harpers Ferry Center, Branch of Archival and Library Services, July 1, 1971, pp. 12, 19. 5. Interview with Chatelain. 6. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, An Administrative History of Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, by John C. Paige and Jerome A. Greene, (Denver: Denver Service Center, 1983), p. 89. 40 Kuhler did not. Lake long to size up the situation at St.. Augustine, though certainly Chatelain, who had traveled the park circuit, and visited there in 1931, had some insights about the situation which he shared. Writing late in December, Kahler laid out a rationale for why the National Park Service should assume full control: the lengthy and significant, history of the area including the valuable links which the two forts provided; the potential for increased travel and visitation to the east coast of Florida and the opportunity to interpret the past to visitors in more than "antiquarian details"; and the opportunity to mitigate the intense local rivalry that spawned many disputes and much negative comment about Harris and the commercialization of the Castillo. (7) Kahler concluded by recommending the museum exhibits of "Hindoo gods raw silk displays [and] Filipino War instruments" be removed since they "detract from its prime interest."(8) He urged placing interpretive signs on casemate doors so visitors might have information should guides not be available, and recommended maintenance of a leaky terreplein (an habitual problem) at the Castillo and foundation repair and accessibility at Fort Matanzas.(9) Previously kept in confidence, this information served to indicate that the National Park Service planned to administer the monuments and not share management as predecessor agencies had done. Both Chatelain and Kahler recalled not wanting to upset the local populace by moving too precipitously toward change. Chatelain noted that Kahler had directions to steer clear of local politics with respect to groups seeking a license to manage the monuments and to move slowly and build rapport. (10) Concurrently, the officers of the St. Augustine Historical Society received word from Chief Historian Chatelain that the National Park Service would 7. Kahler to Chatelain, December 30, 1933, RG 79, NA. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Interview with Chatelain. 41 terminate its license upon expiration in June, 1934 and administer the monuments. This culminated an agreement between the Historical Society and the Department of Interior for joint administration begun July 1, 1933 to run one year or until June 30, 1934. During the first several months Kahler headed a staff which conducted historical research under a New Deal program, Civilian Works Administration (CWA) (later changed to Works Progress Administration [WPA]). Projects included studies on the Fountain of Youth, the oldest house and the measured drawings for the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS). One local research staffer, Albert Manucy, launched what became a long, very productive career associated with the two national monuments and the National Park Service. As the research projects reached conclusion during the spring of 1934, Kahler became more and more aware of the political climate of St. Augustine and the role he had assumed in the community as a government representative. When Judge David R. Dunham and X.L. Pellicer, officers of the Society, became aware of the threat of revenue loss they made a concerted effort to lobby the community groups for support. Kahler recalls he wrote articles "pointing out the advantages of the federal administration of this area," (aided by Nina Hawkins of the St. Augustine Record) and he spoke to many clubs and organizations, often on the same program as Judge Dunham. (11) It became clear that Kahler's job took on the objective of establishing the National Park Service administration rather than CWA/WPA research projects which lasted only a few short months. As the picture cleared, Kahler came to realize the split in the community over the management of the Castillo and secondarily, Fort Matanzas. At the time St. Augustine's Mayor, Walter B. Fraser, operated the Fountain of Youth tourist attraction and developed a point of view favorable to the 11. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Transcript of Oral History Interview of Herbert E. Kahler and Albert C. Manucy by Luis Arana, Harpers Ferry Center, Branch of Archival and Library Services, January 20, 1975, pp. 5-7. 42 Park Service. His motives revolved around the commercial potential of St. Augustine, given the national appeal which the Park Service could draw upon, and his exclusion from membership in the St. Augustine Historical Society.(12) Fraser stood to gain from the new management and as mayor, plus active business man, he and the city commission threw support to the Park Service. A lobbying campaign followed which focused principally upon the Florida congressional delegation and, depending upon the point of view, the issue became renewal or nonrenewal of the license to administer the forts. With Kahler doing yeoman work as eyes and ears of the Park Service plus public relations efforts in the divisive atmosphere of St. Augustine, the Washington office joined the fray. During the summer of 1934 Kahler received the appointment as acting custodian in the absence of Harris who annually spent summers in New Jersey. (13) Instead of tour guide W. H. Gillette who acted in the capacity from 1931-1933, Kahler now held a position from which even more direct observation of operations at the Castillo might be made. From that proximity Kahler noted several problems and made several recommendations in a communique to Chatelain. (14) Specific items addressed included visitor complaints about the guide service, the admixture of museum items, many of which did not relate to the Spanish period, sales pitches by the guides directing visitors to the souvenir items, distribution of literature at the fort entrance, soliciting visits to the oldest house and schoolhouse (owned by the Society and Harris respectively), certain maintenance items related to the Castillo and 12. Ibid., p. 5. 13. Harris to Chatelain, May 31, 1934, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 14. Kahler to Chatelain, September 25, 1934, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 43 the extremely low wages paid the guides (average of $525.00 per year working a 48-hour week).(15) As the year closed and the approaching end of the Historical Society tenure came in sight a maelstrom developed in St. Augustine. A steady stream of correspondence flowed between St. Augustine, the Washington Office and the Florida congressmen, especially Representative William J. Sears, all of which bespoke of intense local efforts to win groups to one point of view or the other. Judge Dunham, president of the Society maintained a steady communication drive to win over public opinion and the Park Service to renewing the license which provided an operating budget for the organization. His basic appeal and that of Sears characterized the longstanding arrangement of the Society and the War Department as very successful; he pointed out maintenance completed, visitor services provided, and what he believed to be saving the forts from certain abandonment had the Society not been involved; and he expressed serious concern over expenditures of the federal budget at a time of national calamity—the Great Depression.(16) Countering the arguments of Dunham, Sears and others, the National Park Service espoused a position which held that under the Executive Orders of 1933 a national system of historical parks provided for an effective program, better planning and improved interpretation of the area by trained staff within a national historical context. The fractiousness of competing groups in St. Augustine which hindered proper focus and management of the resources by a local organization would be eliminated and local expenditure of money would stimulate employment at a time when the nation desperately needed such. Wider exposure of the area to the American public through Park Service publicity, preservation and 15. Ibid. 16. Sears to Demaray, January 23, 1935, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Sears to Demaray, February 1, 1935, Ibid.; Sears to Demaray, February 7, 1935, Ibid.; Sears to Cammerer, March 25, 1935, Ibid. 44 protection of the monuments, and availability of a free guide service would serve the public better. And finally development of the two areas including at Fort Matanzas a caretaker's residence and office, docks, restoration work on the fort, access to the historic structure and the beach would improve and enhance the resources. Development plans at Fort Marion included cleaning the moat, rebuilding the flood gates, restoring the drawbridges, repairing visitor facilities, terreplein and quarters for the caretaker. (17) Basically it came down to the policy of agency management developed by the National Park Service in the early, large western parks and followed in the new historic parks and monuments. As spring wore on it became apparent that the expected strength from lobbying local groups and the state congressional delegation had not been effective. Public opinion in St. Augustine and the firmness of key administrators in the National Park Service precluded renewal of the license to the Historical Society to manage the monuments. In April the Society received notification of the license termination effective June 30, 1935.(18) Writing to the president of the Historical Society, National Park Service Director Arno B. Cammerer stated, "in order to maintain consistently the policy of education and development which this service has established at the national historical parks and monuments ... it will be necessary to bring the two forts at St. Augustine under our direct supervision and control following the expiration of the lease."(19) He added that equipment, stock and other items needed to be moved out 17. Demaray to Sears, January 25, 1935, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; text of speech given to mayor and City Commissioners of St. Augustine, no date or author though probably Kahler during February 1935, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Secretary Ickes to Senator Trammell, April 3, 1935, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Kahler to Cammerer, March 22, 1935, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 18. Cammerer to Dunham, June 7, 1935, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 19. Ibid. 45 by July 1 so that the Park Service might assume possession. In a return message, Dunham reported that Harris had nearly completed the moving of exhibits and he indicated a formal resolution of thanks for the use and custody of Fort Marion would be forthcoming.(20) As acting custodian, Kahler took up the many duties and responsibilities for launching the new administration and building the many bridges necessary between the various constituencies of the St. Augustine community. Gradually, diplomatically and inexorably he increased the role of the National Park Service as administrator of the national monuments. Late in the fall Cammerer notified Kahler that effective December 16, 1935 he would become acting superintendent of Fort Marion and Fort Matanzas national monuments and administrative coordinator of Castle Pinckney and Forts Pulaski and Jefferson.(21) For nearly two years he had served in a management capacity and forged a reputation as a sensitive, hardworking individual who got along with people and at the same time accomplished what needed to be done. A knowledge of and appreciation for history complemented his many skills and helped establish a very significant foundation and tradition for such an historically significant locale. Over the years, through competence and longevity, the tradition remained intact at both national monuments. In August 1936 Kahler became superintendent of Forts Marion and Matanzas and early the following year the Director designated him coordinating superintendent over the Southeastern Monuments of Fort Marion, Fort Matanzas, Fort Pulaski, Castle Pinckney, Ocmulgee, Fort Jefferson and Fort Frederica. Responsibilities included review of all planning and programs and routing of correspondence through the superintendent; ostensibly this formalized 20. Dunham to Cammerer, June 18, 1935, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 21. Cammerer to Kahler, December 6, 1935, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 46 and made more effective the earlier attempts at coordination over Florida parks from inception in 1933 at Chickamauga and Chattanooga. (22) A myriad of decisions faced Kahler during his nearly six-year tenure in St. Augustine. As the first to oversee research, restoration, repair, construction, office and parking facilities, property acquisition and public relations plus coordinating development for several other National Park Service areas, he stayed very busy and involved. Major projects at Fort Matanzas included the acquisition by gift from Ada D. Corbett of 17.34 acres near the south end of Anastasia Island in 1935, which gave road access and land for construction of park facilities in 1936.(23) Docks completed on both Anastasia and Rattlesnake Island in 1935 made it possible for visitors to reach Fort Matanzas. New Deal funding through the Public Works Administration (PWA) also provided for construction of a building for a visitor center office and caretaker's residence, water and sewage system on the newly acquired land in 1936; major work on the foundation of Fort Matanzas through installation of a steel bulkhead occurred the same year. Further construction included an entrance road and parking area which completed a significant amount of work in the development of the area. On October 12, 1937, the National Park Service hosted the dedication of the area with several dignitaries delivering speeches, among them Governor Frederick P. Cone, Senator Claude Pepper and Mayor Walter B. Fraser.(24) A part of the activities included reenactment of certain highlights of Fort Matanzas history and boat service from Anastasia Island to the fort proper. (25) 22. Kahler to Director, January 13, 1937, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Director to Washington Office Files, January 21, 1937, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Kahler to Regional Director, December 15, 1937, National Park Service, RG 79 NA. 23. Rogers, "History of Legislation" p. 2. 24. The St. Augustine Record, October 11, 1937. 25. Ibid. 47 One other major project concluded during Kahler's tenure at Matanzas involved reconstructing the fort's arch which culminated early in 1939. Anticipating future development, Kahler envisioned "a fine beach park near Matanzas," which might be obtained through purchase by local citizens and donated to the Park Service. (26) Much activity had occurred and groundwork laid for future progress at Fort Matanzas. During this period of considerable activity Edward J. Eaton, who had served a few months as a guide at Fort Marion, transferred to Matanzas in 1936 to become the first permanent park custodian to reside in the new quarters. He served there until his retirement in December 1959. A large variety of maintenance, restoration and construction projects at the Castillo kept Kahler busy given his responsibilities at Matanzas and coordinator of several Florida and Georgia parks. A project implemented the year after the Historical Society lease expired (1935) focused on providing office space for the staff, and remodeling and repairing of the public restrooms. In 1937 the moat had fill removed so that some semblance of authenticity might be observed. A long-standing problem involved the leaking terreplein which, after test pit studies, had concrete and a layered membrane placed over it. (27) Kahler, though gone when the formal change took effect, lobbied from 1934 to change the name of Fort Marion to one more historically appropriate. In a letter to the director, Kahler pointed out his success when he noted the Daughters of the American Revolution requested him to make recommendations for the change in 1936 as did X. L. Pellicer of the Rotary Club.(28) As an 26. Kahler to Coe, June 24, 1936, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. Coe, Executive Chairman of the Everglades National Park Association, was making promotional tours on behalf of establishing a park in south Florida; while visiting Matanzas he sized up and recommended to Arno B. Cammerer that the southern tip of Anastasia Island be acquired by the National Park Service. 27. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Terreplein Construction Fort Marion Notations on Its Original Character, by Albert C. Manucy (St. Augustine, Florida; Fort Marion National Monument, 1939), pp. 1-19. 28. Kahler to Director, January 22, 1937, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 48 advocate of the name change, Kahler received support from several other community groups, and based on historical research, presented a strong case for a change to Castillo de San Marcos in recognition of the founding and lengthy occupation by the Spanish. Though questioned by the director, Kahler won him over and subsequently secured memorials favorable to the change from the Florida legislature in the spring of 1939.(29) With considerable support the bill began making its way through Congress during the summer of 1940 and subsequently attained passage into law on June 5, 1942.(30) A variety of other challenges vied for Kahler's attention while in St. Augustine. As far back as 1914 fees had been collected on a voluntary basis for a tour of the Castillo and in 1938 the Director, persuaded by Kahler and approved by the Secretary of the Interior, instituted a fee of ten cents for adult admission. Park staff observed a more attentive frame of mind by visitors and guides alike engendered by the fee.(31) Ever the promoter and booster, Mayor Fraser managed to interest key Carnegie Institution officials, including John C. Merriam, to assess St. Augustine as being worthy of a major historic preservation project. Antecedent to the Carnegie expression, the mayor succeeded in molding local opinion sufficiently well enough to form the St. Augustine Restoration Committee, the purpose of which served to guide the direction of an enlarged Fort Marion National Monument.(32) It entailed the expenditure of sizeable amounts of money that St. Augustine did not have but might raise from 29. Kahler to Director, July 5, 1937, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Kahler to Director, March 8, 1939, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 30. Ibid., Rogers, History of Legislation, p. 4. 31. Associate Director to Secretary of Interior, February 26, 1938, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Kahler to Regional Director, September 19, 1938, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 32. Kahler and Smith to the Director, September 4, 1936, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 49 outside sources such as the Carnegie Institution. Of necessity would be the acquisition of property in the historic core of the community plus the monies to restore and/or reconstruct historic structures. For Fraser it took on a Williamsburg quality that had potential for tourism development, thereby increasing profits for his and other enterprises in St. Augustine. To Carnegie officials it represented an opportunity for planned development based upon a good bit of historical and archeological research, with the research a very important part of the effort. The Institution chose former Chief Historian Chatelain to head the research efforts in St. Augustine; this presented Kahler a unique set of conditions since Chatelain previously served as his superior. By 1938 a determination of the area to be developed identified a core of restoration "from Orange Street to Cuna Street and from Cordova to the Bay."(33) From Cuna south to St. Francis Street would be an area designated for retention of the Spanish influence. However, the idea faded as sustained interest and funding never materialized and Merriam's interests diminished too. In short, the Carnegie group spent little money on reconstruction and restoration and the effects proved minimal as only a few balconies and other visible architectural features resulted, though it accumulated a good bit of useful historical and archeological data. Albert Manucy, long time historian at the monuments, believed a significant contribution of the effort turned out to be the consciousness raising of local residents who "came to understand a little better and appreciate perhaps some of the qualities . . .[of] their history. "(34) 33. Kahler to the Director, October 28, 1938, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 34. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Transcript of Oral History Interview of Herbert E. Kahler by Albert C. Manucy, Harpers Ferry Center, Branch of Archival and Library Services, July 1, 1971, p. 37. 50 Freeland Administration During the late winter of 1939 Kahler received word of his transfer to Morristown National Historical Park effective in April, and in May Edward D. Freeland, superintendent of Wind Cave National Park, replaced him. In a policy statement that summer, the new superintendent set forth his priority as "restore some of the former Spanish atmosphere," through inspiring and educating the visitor. (35) Concentration and focus of plans and development, said Freeland, would be 1565-1715 and all modern developments held to a minimum. (36) Major projects at the Castillo included installation of floodlights, a self-guided tour complete with interpretive signs and the installation of temporary exhibits. Little other than routine maintenance occurred at Fort Matanzas until after World War II; however, access improved somewhat as rowboats could be rented for transportation across the Matanzas River, though it proved to be a low profit enterprise as well as risky for visitor safety. (37) Superintendent Freeland attempted to establish motorized service but concession restrictions and management policies stymied him. (38) During 1939 he moved the park administrative offices to the remodeled Old Governor's House or post office building in St. Augustine. (39) Shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor Freeland accepted a transfer to Shenandoah National Park as superintendent and C. Raymond Vinten came to St. Augustine in the same capacity. His tenure proved to be the 35. Press Release, July 24, 1939, files, CASA. 36. Ibid. 37. "Inspection Report, Interpretive Program Fort Matanzas National Monument," Fort Matanzas National Monument, RG 79, NA, p. 3. 38. Demaray to Freeland, October 2, 1941, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 39. Superintendent's Monthly Report, October 1939, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 51 longest of all managers before or since (January 1942-July 1961) and his familiarity with Park Service areas in Florida proved invaluable in the capacity of coordinating superintendent. (40) Prior to being named superintendent, Vinten served as field supervisor for the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in Florida for eight years. In that capacity he often became involved in Park Service operations with Kahler because emergency funding stemmed from CCC sources. During his administration two additional Park Service areas, Fort Caroline and the Everglades, became responsibilities within the Southeastern Monuments group. Vinten Administration Superintendent Vinten presided at a time when funding, in short supply during the Great Depression, continued at a low level during World War II but turned upward thereafter. Major projects and developments at Fort Matanzas included repairing the southeast corner of the fort and replacing and repairing groins to prevent erosion, all of which suffered damage in a severe hurricane during 1944. Early in the next decade some additional rock work on the west side of the structure occurred. A clarification of land ownership on Rattlesnake Island and a sizeable donation of land on neighboring Anastasia Island came about during and after World War II. Land on Rattlesnake Island that had been transferred to the Department of Agriculture in 1927 as a bird refuge reverted to the State of Florida in 1943 as tidal lands. (41) In 1944 Trustees of the 40. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Centennial Edition National Park Service Officials March 1, 1972, by Howard W. Baker, (Washington, 1972), pp. 45-46, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service; Transcript of Oral History Interview of C. Raymond Vinten by S. Herbert Evison, Harpers Ferry Center, Branch of Archival and Library Services, April 6, 1971, pp. 42-44 (hereafter cited as Vinten-oral history). 41. Arana, "Notes On Fort Matanzas," pp. 70-71. 52 Internal Improvement. Tund deeded some 120 acres of tideland adjacent, to Rattlesnake Island to the United States and four years later this and an additional 89.42 acres became, through Presidential Proclamation 2773, part of Fort Matanzas National Monument. (42) Just after Vinten retired the present boundaries changed a final time because of the generosity of Howard M. and Tressa Yeager Johnson who donated the southern tip of Anastasia Island to Fort Matanzas National Monument. In keeping with a desire of the National Park Service since it acquired Fort Matanzas, Vinten recommended expansion of the boundary to Regional Director Thomas J. Allen in 1945, who disagreed though overruled by Director Newton B. Drury the same year. (43) The Director went on to urge that Vinten speak confidentially with the Johnsons and also seek the support of Governor Millard F. Caldwell and former Governor Spessard L. Holland before approaching the Secretary of the Interior about a proclamation from the President. (44) Very early in 1946 Vinten met with Johnson about donating the land and continuing to reside there; he also spoke of the need to preserve the character of the land and the historical significance of an area in which the Spanish halted expansion of France (the Huguenot slaughter) in North America.(45) However, the Johnsons did not act due to "somewhat adverse feeling about this possibility in the past because of certain personality conflicts," 42. Ibid., p. 71; Proclamation 2773, March 24, 1948, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 43. Kahler to Chief of Lands, Wirth, August 4, 1944, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Allen to Director, September 5, 1944, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Boundary Status Report, April 4, 1948, Boundary Adjustments Fort Matanzas Lands files, CASA; Drury to Allen, November 29, 1945, Boundary Adjustments Fort Matanzas Lands files, CASA. 44. Ibid. 45. Vinten to Johnson, January 4, 1946, Boundary Adjustments Fort Matanzas Lands files, CASA. 53 though they always had an interest in the National Park Service. (46) In 1962 the Johnsons wished to formalize an agreement to donate the land in three parcels and for tax purposes, spread over three years. (47) In exchange they desired a life tenancy with the right to rebuild in case of fire, Park Service maintenance of lane and grounds and consideration of employing their caretaker if he met Civil Service requirements. (48) Superintendent Bertrum C. Roberts urged expedient handling of the request which subsequently occurred and the Park Service met the desires of the donors including employment of their caretaker, James Shope.(49) The property, valued in excess of $300,000, amounted to just over 70 acres which raised the landed area of the monument to 298.51 acres. With the death of Tressa Johnson in 1974 (Howard died in 1971) life tenancy requirements expired and the Park Service assumed responsibility for the entire complex. Vinten's superintendency began just after the outbreak of World War 11 and the war had an immediate impact on his administration. From the latter half of 1942 until March 1944 the United States Coast Guard made use of the Castillo for training. In particular Vinten offered the north grounds for drill, four rooms for classes and the terreplein and parking lot for mounting of guns; all provisions stipulated protection of the historic resources and lives of visitors and park staff. (50) The troops confined their use principally to the north grounds and classroom. Postwar maintenance projects included surfacing of the banquette, repair and cleanup of the City Gate, repair of the Castillo foundation, replacement of several interpretive markers, installation of new sluice 46. Superintendent-Castillo de San Marcos National Monument to Regional Director, Southeast Region, October 10, 1962, CASA. 47. Ibid. 48. Ibid. 49. Ibid. 50. Bearss and Paige, Historic Structure Report - CASA, pp. 438-440. 54 gates, and installation of exterior floodlights. (51) In 1952 work commenced on rehabilitating the courtyard for the first time since the 1920s. During rains the interior became a lake and slick walkways made hazardous conditions for visitors; when it dried the surface deteriorated into dusty, loose footing so repair needed to be accomplished.(52) Park staff raised concerns about the courtyard for several years and planned the work so that a comprehensive archeological dig might take place at the same time.(53) Regional Archeologist Jean C. "Pinky" Harrington headed the project which sought to identify period levels and, ancillary to that purpose, served to introduce field archeology to several thousand visitors during the course of the work in 1953.(54) When completed, the courtyard had a sand based coquina concrete tile walkway on the perimeter which could be relatively easily removed for future archeological investigation, and a grassed center area.(55) In 1952 and 1954 doors, door frames, window frames and window bars received attention and rehabilitation while from 1958-1960 the drawbridges and floor grades of guardroom and offices had restoration and construction work completed on them. (56) Parking and highway alignment concerns, a perpetual problem at the Castillo, arose several times during the Vinten years. In 1951 the city changed the traffic lights at the City Gate and widened the street east of the gate to the pleasure of Vinten. He, however, requested the mayor to seek city commission approval to illumine the gate at night to prevent 51. Ibid., pp. 443-448. 52. Albert Manucy, "Historian's Monthly Narrative Report," January 1948-June 1953, CASA. 53. Coordinating Superintendent, Southeastern National Monuments to Regional Director, October 5, 1950, CASA. 54. Manucy, "Historians Monthly Narrative Report." 55. Bearss and Paige, Historic Resource Report - CASA, p. 449. 56. Ibid. 55 accidents there. (57) Attempted street widening by the city at the expense of monument lands had to be guarded against quite often. Vinten also attempted to complete intermediate steps to alleviate traffic problems through increased parking space. (58) Again in 1957 Vinten wrote that pressures from city fathers resulted from a State Road Department proposal to build a four lane highway between the City Gate and the Bridge of Lions. He did not accept their disclaimer that it would be four lanes only on Bay Street directly south of the Castillo, rather he saw the Fort Marion Circle (now Castillo Drive) also getting the "big wide four-lane turnpike type of treatment. "(59) Land would of course come from the park. Later in the year he appealed for a comprehensive planning effort for the best interests of the community. (60) In 1959 the widening project occurred with land acquisition agreements drawn up in a memorandum of agreement which promised the Park Service any residuals of land on the monument side of Fort Marion Circle. (61) Some 0.15 acres reverted to the United States under the agreement. Congress enacted legislation in 1960 permitting the acquisition of land totaling 1.185 acres for relocating of the drive, which was completed in 1965.(62) On and off again over the years discussion took place about the need for office space, maintenance shops, and storage facilities, located near but 57. Vinten to Mayor Brett, January 26, 1951, CASA. 58. Superintendent to Regional Director, January 7, 1954, CASA; "Annual Report of the Superintendent," June 10, 1954, CASA. 59. "Annual Report of the Superintendent," June 5, 1957, CASA. 60. Vinten to Andreu, City Attorney, December 16, 1957, CASA. 61. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Notes On Castillo de San Marcos," by Luis R. Arana, (St. Augustine: Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, December 28, 1981), pp. 8-9. 62. Ibid. 56 not in the Castillo. Though Superintendent Freeland moved his office out, the desire to have separate facilities never abated, especially as more and more Americans had discretionary income and vacation time available following World War II. Acquisition of land for headquarters and maintenance facilities began through planning efforts during the decade of the 1940s, including attempts to purchase Warden Castle (Ripley's Believe It or Not) in 1941.(63) In 1951 Vinten took an active role in securing congressional support for a bill permitting the purchase of land for a multipurpose building near the Castillo. (64) Though the bill never passed, it nevertheless served as an initial attempt to provide necessary land for development purposes. Undaunted, Vinten pushed forward a plan three years later in which he argued for improved administration and operation of the Castillo, and less directly, Fort Matanzas and the other park areas for which he served as coordinator. (65) The key recommendation of the report called for the purchase of the rundown Herbert J. Drew property on the north boundary of the monument, at an appraised cost of $10,000.(66) In closing, Vinten appealed to the fact that the budget could absorb the cost of acquiring the property, constructing the facility and operating the monument because collected revenues per year totaled $100,000.(67) His argument carried weight thereby setting off a process which included donation of money and initiation of condemnation proceedings in order to buy the 63. Freeland to Director, December 6, 1940, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Freeland to Director, December 21, 1940, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Freeland to Director, April 2, 1941, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Cammerer to Freeland, April 24, 1941, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 64. Herlong to Vinten, April 25, 1951, CASA. 65. Memos from Superintendent, "A Plan For Increasing the Efficiency Of Administration And For The Orderly Operations Within Castillo de San Marcos," October 5, 1954, CASA. 66. Ibid., p. 4-6. 67. Ibid., p. 6. 57 property. In the proceedings, however, the court found in favor of the Drew family, thus delaying acquisition. Inclusion of the acquisition of the land and construction of the building appeared with approval in Ihe MISSION 66 Prospectus (revised June 25, 1957) for Castillo. (68) Several years passed before completion of the facilities in 1965, and when constructed they contained administrative offices as well as maintenance facilities, archival storage and parking. Illustrative of the importance for park managers to interact with the public to foster good public relations is the effort of Vinten, who added to the important foundation laid by Kahler. Though functioning in contrasting historical periods (the Great Depression and World War II) and different stages of park history, both superintendents related as needed with the local populace. Vinten, however, could afford to be more demanding and aggressive. Writing in 1950 he expressed that a corner had been turned in gaining local support and cooperation for the national monument; the "gimee approach of past years" had been left behind. (69) Vinten had been solicited by several local leaders who inquired how they might help out regarding various aspects of managing the Castillo. (70) By the middle of the decade Vinten, the beleaguered administrator, expressed dismay over what to him appeared a one-sided argument by St. Augustine city government: the Castillo should provide the land for bay-front parking and the widening of Fort Marion Circle for traffic purposes.(71) 68. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "MISSION 66 Prospectus," (CASA, April 10, 1956), p. 16. 69. Vinten to Regional Director, April 12, 1950, CASA. 70. Ibid. 71. Vinten to Regional Director, June 6, 1955, and attached document, "A Summary of Federal-City Relations and Recommendations Concerning City and Federal Cooperation St. Augustine, Florida," by C.R. Vinten Superintendent, CASA (see Appendix H). 58 A lack of sustained, long-range planning distressed him more, as he expressed it: An investment in an adequate long-range plan for the City is the foundation upon which to build a zoning ordinance, a long range plan for utilities, and a plan for preserving and interpreting Colonial St. Augustine as an important milestone in the history of the entire western hemisphere. There will never be a better time nor a cheaper time to start such a constructive and far-seeing program. (72) His overall assessment of St. Augustine planning came down to "Hit-and-Miss," which accrued to the detriment of a very historically significant community.(73) In contrast Vinten felt efforts at planning by the National Park Service through the years had been solid but often rebuffed by city officials. (74) Despite his expressed concerns, Vinten developed and maintained good working relations most of the time though by the end of his tenure rifts and strain surfaced with the local community. After retiring Vinten contracted as a planner with Florida State Parks and later accepted reappointment as Safety Officer for the Southeast Region of the National Park Service. (75) Roberts Administration Following the retirement of Vinten in July of 1961 Bertrum C. Roberts, assistant superintendent at Mammoth Cave National Park arrived as superintendent of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas. In the nearly five years Roberts served as superintendent a number of projects culminated that had been moving forward for several years. The major 72. Ibid., p. 7. 73. Vinten to Wolfe, July 26, 1955, CASA. 74. Vinten to Regional Director, June 6, 1955, CASA, p. 2, 4-6. 75. Vinten-oral history. 59 ones included the Cubo Line, road relocation, parking facilities and new administration building at the Castillo. Dock rehabilitation (1963), a sizeable land donation (see above, 1962-1964), storm cleanup from Hurricane Dora in 1964, and a rehabilitated but temporary parking area for sixty cars (1962) comprised the major project developments at Fort Matanzas. Accomplished through archeological and historical research and completed in time for the four hundredth anniversary celebration, the reconstruction of a portion of the Cubo Line defenses helped define for visitors the important role played by adjacent fortifications. The techniques employed in simulating the logs and laying them up exemplified the quality engineering and workmanship of Park Service staff at the Castillo. (76) Worthy of note, the Cubo Line project had no priority status whatsoever in Park Service planning documents, rather it developed because of the untiring efforts of Earle Newton, Executive Director of the St. Augustine Historical and Preservation Commission. The commission, a state-appointed group with little financial backing, lobbied assiduously for reconstructing various earthwork lines extending west of the City Gate to Cordova Street and south to the national cemetery then back to the bay. (77) By late fall the decision had been made to include a portion of the historic defense line at the expense of the National Park Service. 76. Bearss and Paige, Historic Structure Report - CASA, p. 458. See also excellent photo documentation in photographic files. Administration Building, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 77. Vinten to Regional Director, December 31, 1959, National Park Service, CASA; Vinten to Regional Director, June 17, 1960, National Park Service, CASA; Newton to Kahler, May 31, 1960, National Park Service, CASA; Scoyen to Newton, August (no date), 1960, National Park Service, CASA; Newton to Scoyen, September 6, 1960, National Park Service, CASA; Burns to Vinten, September 27, 1960, National Park Service, CASA; Vinten to Regional Director, October 5, 1960, National Park Service, CASA. 60 An especially vexing problem associated with the Cubo Line which Roberts addressed involved restoring the City Gate, including the removal of vehicular traffic passing through it. This permitted some sense of the historic scene to be conveyed to the public even though the relocated Fort Marion Circle separated the gate, associated moat, and short portion of the Cubo Line from the longer portion of the reconstructed line. In 1965 the new highway, Castillo Drive completed the revamped western boundary of the monument. A major celebration and a significant building project also characterized Roberts' years in Florida. Perhaps the most significant event at the Castillo in many years happened in 1965, the four hundredth anniversary of the founding of the outpost by Spanish Admiral Pedro Menendez de Aviles in 1565. Roberts recalled his years in St. Augustine as being particularly challenging in that residents, though aware of the rich historical resources, seemed intent on commercializing everything. (78) At another point he referred to the battle to keep residents, "as honest as we could keep them, and at the same time, stay friendly,"(79) A longstanding problem of office arrangements for park administrative staff reached solution during this period with the completion of a new- administration and maintenance building. Located on the northwest corner of the monument grounds the structure provided much needed space for staff and park functions beginning in January 1965. Davenport Administration When Roberts left in late 1965 to become superintendent of Assateague Island National Seashore the Park Service chose L. Theodore Davenport 78. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Transcript of Oral History Interview of Bertrum C. Roberts by Herbert Evison, Harpers Ferry Center, Branch of Archival and Library Services, March 26, 1971, p. 5. 79. Ibid. 61 as his replacement. He reported in February from Ozark National Scenic Riverways where he served as first superintendent. Davenport arrived at a time of relative calm as the staff caught its collective breath following several years of considerable activity leading up to the celebration of founding four hundred years before. Major activity at Fort Matanzas consisted of stabilizing the shorelines of Rattlesnake and Anastasia Islands preventing erosion on the perimeter of Fort Matanzas, and struggling to maintain accessibility for the visitors by concession-operated boat service from the visitor center to the fort. Intermittent service had been provided from the early 1940's but always at the prospect of losing money and needing a subsidy; in the fall of 1970 service stopped entirely. As the decade of the sixties came to a close it became clearer that commercial development, pushing southward on Anastasia Island, portended change and probable adverse impact on Fort Matanzas. By 1969 a pompano fish hatchery complex including canals threatened the immediate boundary near the visitor center. (80) Castillo on the other hand, given all the attention devoted to it prior to the celebration, had only routine maintenance performed on it during these years. For Davenport, managing the three historical areas of Matanzas, Caroline and Castillo represented a change since all of his assignments had been in natural areas. He sought to cooperate with the local community by providing "a unified program wherein we tell not just the story of Castillo but the story of St. Augustine. "(81) As a contextual approach, it is reminiscent of Kahler's attempts upon his arrival as the first superintendent. 80. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Black and white photo, photo file, M485, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 81. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Transcript of Oral History Interview of L. Theodore Davenport by Albert Manucy, Harpers Ferry Center, Branch of Archival and Library Services, February 15, 1971, p. 39. 62 Schesventer Administration With a variety of background in parks emphasizing natural, archeological, and historical resources, most recently at the Mound City Group, George F. Schesventer became superintendent in March 1971. In the ensuing nine years a variety of planning documents, maintenance projects, encroaching development and community relations activities kept him occupied. The year after arrival new and lasting ferryboat service became available at Fort Matanzas under the auspices of Richard Orsini on a continuing and full-time basis. (82) Initially under a concession arrangement the operator collected a fee, however in September 1973, the Park Service placed it under a contract arrangement and the operation became free to the visitor.(83) Encroachment toward Fort Matanzas continued, and in February 1972 developers met with Schesventer in regard to a twenty-acre site immediately north of the boundary on the ocean. The regional staff, ignoring frequent pleas of the superintendent, chose not to exert pressure to influence zoning; by a vote of three to two the St. John's County Zoning Commission favored a condominium development which in an unplanned way projected to a capacity of 750,000 people. (84) Within a decade much of the monument surroundings would become another urban park; in July of 1980 construction of the Summerhouse condominiums began on the shore adjacent to Matanzas beach. 82. Superintendent's Monthly Report, December 1972, CASA. 83. "The National Park Service History of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments For The Year 1973," CASA, p. 9. 84. Ibid.; U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Transcript of Oral History Interview of George F. Schesventer by Herbert Evison, Harpers Ferry Center, Branch of Archival and Library Services, November 8, 1973, p. 32; Telephone interview with Robert C. Amdor, National Park Service, Whitman Mission National Historic Site, March 19, 1986. 63 A potential threat addressed in 1974 focused on the buildup of a shoal from Anastasia Island across the Matanzas River to the boundary on Rattlesnake Island, where a breakthrough occurred from a hurricane ten years earlier; land access to Fort Matanzas from Anastasia Island could possibly be effected by nature. Should that be the case, the human threat to the historic resource would increase considerably, thus at the request of the Park Service the Corps of Engineers agreed to close the breakthrough which they completed in January 1977.(85) Concern over the deteriorating condition of Fort Matanzas found its way into reports beginning in the mid-seventies as woodboring insects attacked major floor supports. (86) After securing monies for historic resource studies, work on such got underway in 1978 to be completed in August of 1980. Simultaneously planning for stabilizing the fort proceeded at the Denver Service Center and work commenced late in 1979.(87) The project included replacement of the roof deck, terreplein deck, and metal tie rods plus masonry repair to the subgrade scarps; reconstruction of the tabby floor of the second story; building and installation of stairs, scupper, and cannon carriages completed the project. New docks on both Anastasia and Rattlesnake islands, finished the previous year, provided important facilities for visitors and personnel of the stabilization project. 85. St. Augustine, Florida, "The National Park Service History of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments For The Year 1974," CASA, p. 15 (hereafter cited as "The National Park Service History of" et al.). 86. St. Augustine, Florida, "The National Park Service History of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments For The Year 1976," CASA, p. 54; Interpretive Specialist - History to Chief-Interpretation and Visitor Services, August 18, 1977, CASA. 87. The National Park Service History of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments for the Year 1978," CASA, pp. 34-36, 52; "The National Park Service History of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments For The Year 1979," CASA, p. 62. 64 During the Schesventer years changes took place at the Castillo which reflected certain management points of view. A substantial commitment to living history programs gained much momentum during this period with demonstration firing of cannon and firearms by staff dressed in period costume. Celebrations (see following chapter) commemorated the three hundredth anniversary of the building of the Castillo and the one hundredth birthday of the national parks in 1972, and several events associated with the bicentennial of the United States in 1976. A museum conservator from Harpers Ferry Center examined artifact storage and conditions; cataloging, cleaning and storing of objects got underway in 1976. The same year park staff removed several trees to return the glacis to something of an historical setting. Redesigned, repaved, and restriped, the Castillo parking lot functioned better after the improvement in 1978. A variety of planning projects took shape. These included historic structure reports for both monuments, a natural resource management plan, review of the master plans and an interpretive prospectus. Other special studies involved archeology, sea oats, waves, currents and sediments. In February 1979 the Department of Transportation of the state of Florida ceded 0.141 acres of land to Castillo de San Marcos which by virtue of the relocated Fort Marion Circle (now Castillo Drive) reverted to the federal government. In 1978 Superintendent Schesventer redressed an encroachment made prior to 1933 on government property on the south side of the City Gate. Schesventer, very much a staunch proponent of resource protection and alert for threats to the resources, on the other hand seemed not to reflect the same concern for staff and community relations. In 1980 an Operations Evaluation Team report led to his transfer to Fort Caroline National Memorial. Aikens Administration Following Schesventer, Martha B. Aikens assumed the superintendency in December, 1980 after completion of the Departmental Management 65 Development Program. As the first double minority superintendent (black woman) Aikens recalled the community reaction of "wait and see," or a kind of guarded acceptance.(88) With park experience as unit manager at Gateway/Breezy Point and in Everglades National Park she addressed a number of issues in need of resolution at St. Augustine. A source of irritation for the park maintenance staff and law enforcement rangers concerned the after hours use of the parking area by patrons of nearby local businesses, who used the monument as a meeting place and repository for much litter. The decision to place gates across the entrance and exit and close them each day met with much opposition, but received acceptance when management agreed to make the lot available for special events. Staff morale also improved due to the transfer of the Ranger office from damp, leaky Casemate #1 to Casemate #23. At Fort Matanzas the County Zoning Board agreed to requests from Superintendent Aikens to provide for special zoning regulations so that developers would be required to plant shrubbery to soften some of the visual impact of the condominiums hard by the park boundary .(89) During this time a donation box (part of the management efficiency) on board the ferryboat to the fort served to defray costs of the contracted service. An awareness of protecting natural resources resulted in an active dunes stabilization program involving snow fence installation and vegetation plaitings. Sea turtle and Least Tern programs received special emphases too. Emphasis placed on park maintenance resulted in replacement of the drawbridge and rejuvenation of grounds at the Castillo, and rewiring of facilities at Fort Matanzas. Several changes in the interpretive program included construction of a boardwalk nature trail at Fort Matanzas, staffing coverages at both monuments, rehabilitation of museum exhibits and torchlight tours at the Castillo. At the latter, new regulations permitted under the Code of Federal Regulations in 1983, 88. Telephone interview with Martha B. Aikens, National Park Service, Washington, D.C., August 12, 1985. 89. Ibid. 66 allowed restrictions on several forms of recreation on the green. Pets, food, and beverages, no longer allowed inside the Castillo, also reflected management concerns for increased recreational pressures. Seemingly in part because of community attitudes toward minorities and a lack of social contacts, Aikens left in November of 1983 for a position of Interpretive Specialist in the Washington Office, National Park Service. Griffin Administration Barbara J. Griffin of the Southeastern Regional Office staff assumed the superintendency in March of 1984. A former Programs Officer in the region, she became superintendent during a period of routine activities at the two national monuments. During the remainder of 1984 small construction jobs completed included resurfacing roads at Fort Matanzas and placing lightweight wooden rails along the east parapet and on particular firing steps for preservation and safety purposes at the Castillo. Griffin's administration attempted to seek more ways of cooperating with the community through participating in events such as Special Olympics, preservation activities, sharing of visitor survey information and heightening community awareness for protecting park resources. (90) In a community whose economic base is tourism Griffin reported numerous requests (e.g., ticket sales for tour trains or added products at the gift shop) for utilizing portions of the Castillo grounds for commercial purposes. (91) As urban parks, it seems quite likely that the two monuments increasingly will face various pressures in a region that is growing; vigilance of resources remains constant though threats change as the twentieth century nears a close. 90. Telephone interview with Barbara J. Griffin, CASA, August 14, 1985. 91. Ibid. 67 CHAPTER 4: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: PROGRAMS AND RELATIONS INTERPRETATION From the sometimes imaginative guided tours of Sergeant George M. Brown to the costumed Park Service Rangers and volunteers presenting living history, interpreting the past to the visitor has been an important function at Fort Matanzas and Castillo de San Marcos national monuments. During years of War Department management the Castillo had an increasing number of visitors meandering through the fortification on their own or being led through by military personnel or caretakers such as Brown. Interpretation, a term which came into usage during the 1930s, meant providing the visiting public with information about an area through a variety of techniques and mediums. From the beginning of visitation to the Castillo the spoken word became the common form of presenting historical information and the guided tour the format. Form and format continued with little change until 1935 when the National Park Service assumed management of the two areas. Variances from this approach included a guidebook authored by Brown and an exhibit initiated in 1914 when the St. Augustine Historical Society began to place museum objects in the casemates of the Castillo. Apparently, few exhibits pertained to the history of the area or linked together the structures, historical past or exhibit cases. In short, the guided tour served as the dominant medium with the setting and structures conveying the remainder of the interpretive story. During the late autumn of 1934 Historical Technician Herbert Kahler remarked to Chief of the Historical Division Chatelain that the revisions to the museum would permit irrelevant materials to be removed and placed in storage. (1) He believed the story of the Castillo should be presented 1. Kahler to Chatelain, December 10, 1934, National Park Service RG 79, NA. 69 through relevant exhibits and descriptive materials, including photographs of the monuments and personages associated with them. (2) To his credit, Kahler's particular emphasis focused on the Spanish past: Fort Marion's chief historical significance lies in the period of exploration, colonization and colonial rivalry in the Caribbean area . . . The fortifications were at their height of glory toward the end of the first period of Spanish occupation.(3) To restore the Spanish atmosphere, as Kahler put it, should be the interpretive focus of the two national monuments. To accomplish this, he believed: Three or four casemates in the fort should be used as a museum for displaying maps, graphic devices, dioramas and such materials as will help the visitor to interpret the rich cultural complex and realize the tremendous fascinating story associated with Fort Marion. (4) He added that guide service provided by intelligent and well trained staff plus readable, accurate and illustrated literature should be available to the visitor. (5) The major enhancement of the interpretive program by Kahler emanated from his choice of Albert C. Manucy as Junior Research Technician. Manucy, a St. Augustine native, had completed a graduate degree at the University of Florida and secured a position in 1934 as researcher with the Civil Works Administration at Fort Matanzas and Castillo de San Marcos under the supervision of Kahler. With an academic background in 2. Ibid.; Kahler to Director, February 10, 1936, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 3. Kahler to Director, October 28, 1938, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid. 70 English, Fine Arts and Spanish, Manucy proved very capable; however, because of the depression he accepted short term employment for a few years with various Relief Administration projects, including research on Fort Jefferson at Key West and supervision of the Federal Writers Project in St. Augustine. (6) When the Carnegie Institution began its project in St. Augustine under the direction of Verne E. Chatelain, former Chief Historian of the National Park Service, it used members of the writers project staff. (7) In time Chatelain placed them on his payroll and Manucy accomplished historical research, photography and translation of Spanish documents. Then in November of 1938 he joined the National Park Service for what became a long and distinguished career, some twenty-eight years in St. Augustine. If timing counts in the launching of a managing bureau then the timing of career launching in the bureau does too. Hard times and small budgets proved to be fertile ground for talented and skilled individuals such as Manucy. He variously completed historical research, architectural research and drawing, photography, graphics for exhibits, historic site archeology, construction and maintenance supervision, planning and interpretive displays, in addition to overseeing interpretive programs, not only at the Castillo and Fort Matanzas, but at other parks in the cluster of Southeastern National Monuments. Region One Historian Roy E. Appleman summed up Manucy in complimenting the interpretive program of the monuments when he wrote, "He has performed at one and the same time the function of an historian, museum technician, artist, and model builder. "(8) 6. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Transcript of Reminiscences by Albert C. Manucy, Harpers Ferry Center, Branch of Archival and Library Services, November 11, 1972, pp. 1-2. 7. Ibid., pp. 2-5. 8. Appleman to Regional Director, September 15, 1946, CASA, p. 1. 71 Changes in the interpretive program included two innovations that reflected the efforts of Manucy to educate the public about the historical past through a radio program and a newspaper column. Radio station WFOY in St. Augustine carried scripts written by him, Rhoda Emma Neel and F. Hilton Crowe for several months in 1939. For purposes of public information and enlightenment, beginning in 1942 Manucy wrote a newspaper column that ran ten years under the titles "With the Park Ranger" and "The Castillo Sentry." Historical accuracy and context guided the efforts to give visitors insights into the past at St. Augustine. Instead of discrete bits of information the interpretive effort for the public sought to bring together historical data, historic structures and setting, plus audio and visual mediums in a unified presentation. To achieve part of the interpretive program the Park Service needed trained guides to lead tours every half hour; Castillo guides in 1939 numbered ten "carefully selected and trained in both local and national history."(9) Supplementing tours, the program also included museum exhibits such as a display of coquina to illustrate building properties, and the aforementioned radio broadcasts.(10) At Fort Matanzas in 1940 interpretation consisted of a guide who gave a brief orientation talk in the passageway of the administration building near a "crude model" of the fort. Near the wharf, from which the fort may be viewed, "about a five minute historical talk" was given.(11) The inspection report added, "The visitor, no doubt, goes away entirely dissatisfied," as powerboat transportation is unavailable; it added that such should be made available "without delay." Rowboats, the report 9. Press Release, "Freeland Discusses Development Program at Fort Marion National Monument," July 24, 1939, CAS A, p. 5. 10. Ibid. 11. Lattimore, "Inspection Report, Interpretive Program, Fort Matanzas National Monument, July 13, 1940, CAS A, p. 3. 72 noted, though available, were rather dangerous. (12) Those visitors who reached the fort conducted themselves through it. Ronald F. Lee, then National Park Service Supervisor of Historic Sites, recommended guided tours for information and to prevent defacement of the resource should visitors wander through on their own.(13) To inform park staff, the historian prepared notes on museum exhibits and placed them on file at Fort Matanzas, where a small exhibit in the visitor center-office conveyed information for the 1565-1740 period. (14) A variety of documents generated by Park Service researchers through the years (see following section) served to fill in gaps and details of the archeological and historical record at both monuments. Kahler inaugurated colored slide presentations to give visitors an historical overview of the Castillo. Through trial and error, management discovered that visitors preferred to walk around the fort for a time before sitting through a slide show. During the Vinten years a number of color films, many on National Park Service areas, supplemented the interpretive program for community groups and organizations.(15) A Children's Hour program inaugurated at the time proved very popular at the Castillo on Saturday mornings. Upon admission a slide show of fifteen to twenty minutes presented local history topics, then the children participated in a tour to certain parts of the Castillo. As local history topics wore thin a number of slide shows with scripts from other Park Service areas, especially in the southeastern states, found usage.(16) 12. Ibid. 13. Lee to Director, September 17, 1941, National Park Service RG 79, NA. 14. Historian to Administrative Aid, March 21, 1955, CASA. 15. "Narrative Report of Historian Albert C. Manucy, Southeastern National Monuments for March, 1949," CASA, p. 1. 16. Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, Vinten to Coordinating Superintendent, November 25, 1943!, Harpers Ferry Center: Branch of Archival and Library Services, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas National Monument Correspondence files. 73 The first Saturday attendance reached "close to 150 children," and park staff soon came to realize the potential of educating children about the national parks, and not just local history.(17) Another aspect of the interpretive program provided visitors with a folder about the monuments, while the concessioner sold copies of Manucy's The Building of Castillo de San Marcos and The History of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas from Contemporary Narratives and Letters, along with Castillo, a booklet prepared by the concessioner.(18) During the latter 1950s into the 1960s problems developed with the quality of guided tour experiences at the Castillo. Some rangers lacked initiative and gave perfunctory walk-throughs of the fort; they tended to sensationalize the past and gave talks with little historical substance and no historical context.(19) Management promoted the easy answer couched in an entertaining style while the supervisor encouraged educating the public through solid historical content and context.(20) Equivocating, the park historian urged the supervisor to do as he saw fit.(21) Advances in technology made appearances at Matanzas and the Castillo through the years. An audio station system beginning in 1959 provided a taped message at nine locations at the Castillo. The stations frustrated staff because of malfunctions: "often we have two or three speakers out 17. Ibid.; Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, Harper Ferry Center: Branch of Archival and Library Service, Regional Director to Superintendent, Morristown National Historical Park, October 15, 1943, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas National Monument correspondence files. 18. Narrative Report of Historian, March 1949, CASA p. 2. 19. Telephone interview with Edwin C. Bearss, National Park Service, Washington, D.C., November 15, 1985. 20. Telephone interview with Luis R. Arana, National Park Service, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, November 12, 1985. 21. Ibid. 74 of commission at the same time, the superintendent reported. (22) Matanzas had one audio station near the visitor center pier which "is used by practically every visitor to the park. "(23) Perhaps the biggest investment in an interpretive program began in 1962 with a concessioner owned and operated program known as Sound and Light. A success with European audiences and sponsored by the Washington Office of the Park Service, the presentation used special effects--lighting and stereophonic sound to convey to the audience a sense of the history associated with the Castillo and St. Augustine.(24) To be pioneered at the Castillo (and Independence National Historical Park), the investment by Marineland of the Pacific (associated with Marineland of Florida) totaled something over $400,000 for purposes of testing the American Market. (25) The project consumed much time and effort because of the need to construct a permanent installation of technical equipment and seating which occupied the southwest terreplein in a somewhat obtrusive manner. A flurry of letters and memoranda flowed to and from St. Augustine as various installation requests and change orders came forth. (26) The bleachers had to be set up and taken down each performance and one casemate had to be specially equipped and air conditioned to handle the electronic equipment. On August 2-3, 1962, the first showings presented to a private audience experienced several technical problems but generally 22. Superintendent's Annual Report, July 1, 1958-May 31, 1959, CASA. 23. Ibid. 24. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, News Release, CASA, April 28, 1965; Oral History Transcript, Roberts pp. 7-8. 25. Ibid. 26. Nutt to Chief Architect, Eastern Office of Design and Construction, March 27, 1962, CASA; Superintendent to Regional Director, June 15, 1962, CASA. 75 the reaction proved favorable. (27) Superintendent Roberts, not an advocate of the new presentation, noted that the contract expired al let- five years, or sooner if desired. (28) As an evening drama depicting the conflicts of Spain, France and Great Britain, the production lagged in attendance and by late April of 1965, management decided to terminate the contract. (29) Sound and Light Corporation of America petitioned to have the contract revoked and no other contractor could be assigned the unexpired portion, according to Roberts. (30) Clearly it came down to a financial disaster as ticket sales never paid the expenses despite the promise of many more tourists during 1965 because of the 400th anniversary of the founding of St. Augustine. Severe attendance drops in 1964 due to racial unrest hampered receipts, too. Through the years initial contact with the public began at the sallyport or perhaps the drawbridge, however, in the mid-sixties visitor contact in the parking lot gained support. Superintendent Roberts expressed concern for improved contact and quality of tours plus revised scripts for the audio stations. (31) After a survey, a decision to put one interpreter in the parking lot addressed some public contact problems and a close observation of ranger-interpreters brought out "a lack of warmth" and listlessness "when greeting visitors. "(32) Audio station scripts underwent revision and rewriting with more emphasis placed on Spanish terminology and names, while additional staff received training in repair and upkeep of the audio units. (33) 27. Superintendent to Regional Director, August 5, 1962, CASA. 28. Ibid. 29. News Release. 30. Ibid. 31. Notes of Employees Meeting, July 15, 1965, CASA, pp. 1-2. i 32. Ibid., p. 1. 33. Ibid., p. 2. 76 With the advent of the Schesventer administration, which became more sensitive to interpretation than previous ones, a considerable increase in living history demonstrations began in 1973; most took the form of cannon and matchlock musket firings at the Castillo. In that year alone 865 more cannon and twelve more musket firings occurred than during the previous year, while at Matanzas 104 firings plus 3,786 talks reflected new emphases in the interpretive program. (34) This pattern continued and raw numbers of firings and programs increased in 1974, especially with an emphasis on "living history" of the British period and uniforms and accouterments of the Spanish and United States periods. (35) Museum exhibits at the Castillo took on a decidedly British flavor as the nation's bicentennial approached. For the mid seventies period heavy emphasis on living history continued (more than 1200 cannon and 600 musket firings annually) with an interpretive activity every half hour. (36) Rehabilitated and new museum exhibits arrived at Fort Matanzas, where installation required eight months to complete. In 1976 weapons demonstrations increased in number, though fewer cannon firings underscored precautions taken in the heavy use of black powder and the deterioration of the cannon tubes. Interpretive activities at the Castillo took place every twenty minutes as visitation climbed some fifty-two percent over 1975.(37) Interpreters kept the Matanzas visitor center open each day and a costumed interpreter detailed to the fort proper presented a number of talks and interacted informally with visitors. In 1971 a planning team visited the monuments and local area in an attempt to develop an interpretive prospectus. Their procedures and process, plus the identified interpretive theme, left much to be desired 34. "The National Park Service History of CASA," 1973, CASA, pp. 8-10. 35. Ibid. , 1974, pp. 11-13. 36. Ibid., 1975, pp. 12-14. 37. Ibid. , 1976, pp. 18-19. 77 and illustrated the need for a fundamental and necessary step in the planning process: park staff involvement. A know-it-all attitude precluded dialogue and focus. Thus, the interpretive prospectus languished until the latter seventies. (38) The need to focus on the Spanish presence in Florida (the borderlands) as opposed to the whole Spanish colonial system in America escaped the planners and to some extent may yet be lacking today. (39) Adjustments in the interpretive program made in 1977 included an emphasis on safety, protection of historic resources and change due to differing patterns of visitation. Eliminated for safety reasons, cannon firings totaled zero and reduction of musket firings begun.(40) Visitation dropped significantly at the Castillo so the staff offered fewer tours and began to schedule many more school groups oriented by "off-site materials, pre-visit, and on-site visitation materials. "(41) Also, tours on the green around the Castillo seemed relaxing to interpretive staff members and the setting permitted more remarks to be directed toward the Castillo in the world and the development of historical context. (42) At Fort Matanzas a repeater message on the ferryboat gave an orientation en route to the fort and the interpreter, in eighteenth century Spanish or English uniform, "stressed the life of the soldier in the outpost rather than stressing weapons firing. "(43) 38. Staff Historian to Associate Regional Director, August 11, 1975, CASA; Associate Regional Director to Superintendent, August 25, 1975, CASA; Luis Arana, "One Who Wasn't Pillaged," undated, CASA. 39. Ibid. 40. "The National Park Service History of CASA," 1977, CASA, pp. 18-22, 24-25. 41. Ibid., p. 21. 42. Ibid., p. 22. 43. Ibid., p. 25. 78 For the years 1978-1979 firings of cannon (a reproduction model) and musket continued to increase, particularly at the Castillo, despite adherence to safety regulations and limits on living history programs. (44) Between 1980-1984 the Volunteer In The Parks (VIP) program increased significantly, especially in the living history program which had in excess of 150 individuals. Changes during this time sought to vary interpretive talks with other mediums including museum exhibits (permanent and temporary), different levels of interpretation through visitor profiles and candlelight tours of the Castillo twice a year. (45) Interpretive personnel rotated during the week from Castillo to Fort Matanzas and return, and reported the variety to be a welcome change while staffing both areas seven days a week.(46) In 1984 an approved statement for interpretation and visitor services addressed management influences and concerns; summarized program constraints, themes and objectives including intended audience for both national monuments; and gave an overview of the program.(47) In sum, the program consists of guided walks, roving contacts, firing demonstrations, living history focused on daily life, museum exhibits and special events such as tours, celebrations or commemorative activities.(48) SPECIAL EVENTS AND VISITORS A long tradition of special events and commemorative celebrations dating to the nineteenth century exists for the two national monuments, 44. Ibid., 1978, pp. 17-19, 21-22; 1979, pp. 16-17, 20-21. 45. Aikens, telephone interviews; Griffin, telephone interviews. 46. Aikens, telephone interview. 47. St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, "Statement for Interpretation and Visitor Services for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments," by Chief of Interpretation and Resource Management, July 12, 1984, CASA. 48. Ibid. 79 especially the Castillo. Proximity of a community to a military installation from the early Spanish period forward lent itself to a socialization process including public use of military facilities. Within the purview of this history numerous requests to use the Castillo have been considered and permitted by the various government departments administering it. Usages have run the gamut from Ministerial Alliance-sponsored Easter sunrise services on the terreplein to Business Men's League-sponsored Ponce de Leon celebrations complete with costumes and pageantry during the first third of the twentieth century. Other events of a random nature have included Labor Day (1913), Chamber of Commerce band concert (1913), Power Boat Club grandstand (1914), Armistice Day (1926) and Order of Elks Industrial Exposition (1926).(49) After the two areas came under management of the National Park Service in 1935 fewer such events took place, although the largest and most significant ones have been since then. At Fort Matanzas the single major celebration commemorated the French-Spanish conflict in the southeast and took place at the dedication of the newly completed caretaker residence and office complex, October 12, 1937. Several major celebrations took place at the Castillo but the two which stand out happened during the entire years of 1965 and 1972. These were the 400th anniversary of founding St. Augustine; the 300th anniversary of the construction of the Castillo; and the centennial observance of the establishment of Yellowstone National Park. By coincidence, only two years separated the St. Augustine Quadricentennial in 1965 from the expected completion of both fort's MISSION 66 projects in 1967. As a gesture of Park Service cooperation toward the local celebration, Director Wirth moved up funding so that all work could be finished, if possible, in 1965 (50). 49. Scattered references of celebrations are reported in many files at CASA and RG 79, NA. 50. Conversation with Luis Arana, September 11, 1985. 80 Progressively, the British room rehabilitation, the Cubo Line reconstruction, the administration building, cashier booth, latrine stabilization, City Gate improvements, the road relocation and new parking area, the southwest glacis restoration and new museum exhibits became realities. But a limited terreplein waterproofing, sprinkler system installation and cannon carriage construction drawings did not see completion until 1966. And Matanzas made ready for the 400th through land acquisition, dock renovation, shoreline stabilization and intermittent ferryboat service by a concessioner. Visitors to St. Augustine during 1965 discovered many extra events scheduled to coincide with certain key anniversaries. A partial list includes: Opening Day Ceremony, January 1 (special visitors from Spain, torchlight parade and cannon salute); Fiesta de Menendez, February 13-14 (street dances, pageant, descendants of early Spanish families to be hosts); Fiesta of Flags, February 27-28 (commemoration of various flags flown over Castillo); re-creation of historic Ponce de Leon celebration, blessing of fleet and Easter sunrise, April; celebration of 400th anniversary of Menendez landing, September 8; dedication of anniversary monument and formal ending of celebration.(51) Substantially greater numbers visited Fort Matanzas and Castillo during the celebratory year with July attendance at the latter breaking the 100,000 mark, a record not reached again until July, 1971 (see Appendix G). For comparison purposes, a caveat to be noted is the racial tension and civil rights activities during the summer of 1964 that significantly reduced the number of tourists in St. Augustine and at the Castillo in particular (see Appendix G). All in all the sixties prior to the anniversary proved to be a very energized period of park improvements, restoration, construction and general readiness for the main event in September 1965. 51. St. Augustine, Florida, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, "Schedule of Events for 400th Anniversary celebration," unpublished, CASA. 81 Some seven years later townspeople, park staff and visitors participated in celebrations for two anniversaries, the National Parks centennial (1872-1972) and the tricentennial of the building of the Castillo de San Marcos itself. Similar to those in 1965, a series of special events celebrated the year and included an art show/open house in March; an investiture of the Spanish Royal Family pageant in April; a summer historic recreation site oriented program for children in June; a program recalling Menendez's founding of St. Augustine in September; a bronze plaque at the City Gate placed by the Florida chapter of the Colonial Dames of America; and several journal articles published by the St. Augustine Historical Society.(52) Over the years several special visitors have come to the Castillo and to a much lesser extent, Fort Matanzas; many in association with special events or celebrations. Numerous Spanish officials scheduled stops at the monuments and in St. Augustine too, including Ambassadors Jaime Arguellas, Angel Sagaz, Jaime Alba, Jose Llado; then Prince Juan Carlos de Borbon; Spanish Consuls General Jose Luis de la Guardia, Jose Luis Litago, and Don Vicente Ramirez-Montesinos; Jaime Pinies, Spanish Ambassador to the United Nations; Prince Alphonse de Borbon, Duke of Cadiz; Lieutenant General Camilo Alonso, Minister of the Interior; Admiral Luis Aravalo, Spanish Chief of Naval Operations Minister of the Army; Manuel Fraga Iriborne, Minister of Tourism and Information; Manuel de Prado and Colon de Carvajal and Luis Yanez, presidents of the Iberoamerican Institute for Cultural Cooperation; and the Grupo de Danzas de Aviles. Other visitors have included Governors Romero Barcelo, Puerto Rico and Bob Graham of Florida; former Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall; Prince Andrew of Great Britain; Consul General of Great Britain Michael Hewitt; and Prince Sanidh Rangst and Princess Christine of Thailand.(53) The importance of bilingual Park Service staff 52. St. Augustine, Florida, "Castillo de San Marcos National Monument Centennial/Tri-centennial Calendar 1972," unpublished, CASA. 53. Superintendent's Monthly Reports and Annual Reports, 1960-1984, CASA. 82 at the fortifications is apparent to assist the many Spanish-speaking visitors each year. RESEARCH History A long and rather distinguished history of research may be identified at the Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas national monuments. Twin goals have guided the research program: data on which to base preservation of the resources and interpretation of the resources to the public. Most likely, the first significant effort to produce information from research to guide restoration goes back to 1884 when the War Department sought information through the State Department from the United States Minister in Madrid. (54) From various archival sources copies of two original plans of Castillo and one of St. Augustine produced the information desired for guiding restoration of the Castillo. (55) The search for archival data in Spain has not only the significance of establishing a long and continuing tradition of research at the two monuments, but the singular importance of being initiated by an 1884 congressional appropriation of $5,000 specifically for preservation.(56) This came almost five years before the more widely acclaimed preservation efforts for Casa Grande ruins. Two products of lesser quality but nevertheless in keeping with the provision of information for use in interpreting the Castillo are the guidebooks for visitors written by Sergeant George M. Brown and William J. Harris. When the National Park Service accepted responsibility for administering the forts coordinating Superintendent Richard B. Randolph of 54. Bearss and Paige, Historic Structure Report-CASA, pp. 294-295. 55. Arana, "Notes," footnote 7, pp. 72-73. 56. Ibid., p. 293. 83 Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park designated Herbert Kahler as custodian and Civil Works Administration (CWA) representative. Kahler supervised a small cadre of researchers including Albert Manucy who worked on local history topics and completed measured drawings of Matanzas, Castillo and other local structures for the Historic American Buildings Survey. (57) This effort launched an ongoing research focus by National Park Service managers from the beginning. Identification of the need for research and the special problems it presented came early in the Park Service years. Junior Research Technician Manucy and Superintendent Kahler quickly sized up the paucity of information to guide interpretive programs and preservation of resources. A lack of Spanish source material in local repositories generated concerns that per diem and travel expenses must be found to provide for research trips to obtain materials at the North Carolina Division of Archives and History, the Stetson Collection at the University of Florida and in time, at the Archives of the Indies plus several other repositories in Spain. (58) The assessment also pointed up the timeless problem of a staff consumed with administrative and public contact duties to the neglect of the central purpose for the existence of the parks and the park system: preservation of the resources. (59) Manucy in time capitalized on the advocacy of managers such as Appleman in the form of research support, and it took a person of his enormous energies and abilities to accomplish these duties and responsibilities. Writing some twenty-eight years later, he observed that "Most of our projects have grown out of the need of the moment. "(60) 57. Fagg to Randolph, January 18, 1934, CASA; Kahler Interview by Albert Manucy, pp. 20-23. 58. Appleman to Regional Director, December 18, 1939, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 59. Ibid. 60. Manucy to Superintendent, March 2, 1966, CASA. 84 In 1952 the Castillo Master Plan Development Outline contained a section on status of research which stated that the first ten years should be used in building a study collection. (61) Results of the effort produced some "1800 books and pamphlets; and 8,000 Spanish, French and English documents mostly on microfilm."(62) Additionally, the park historian assembled a large number of note cards, maps and photographs and cataloged approximately one half of the manuscripts. Research voids yet to be filled included the 1700-1763 Spanish period; 1763-1783 English period; 1784-1821 second Spanish period; construction history; and a visitor handbook. (63) Fort Matanzas-related research was insufficient and what existed coincided with that secured for the Castillo. (64) Suggested research topics included sixteenth century source material, an historical base map, study of the events in 1565 and a narrative history handbook. (65) What research existed in a preliminary way served to suffice and recommendations for MISSION 66 received little support, as Superintendent Roberts reported in 1962. He lamented that Civil War areas preparing for centennials had "comprehensive research programs and massive interpretive construction plans" and even Forts Caroline and Frederica had "extensive research programs."(66) For a park about to celebrate 400 years, the lack of research appeared to be unjustified though some inferred "there is enough information already on hand to 61. St. Augustine, Florida, "MISSION 66 Prospectus Castillo de San Marcos National Monument," April 10, 1956, CAS A, p. 32. 62. Ibid. 63. Ibid. 64. St. Augustine, Florida, "MISSION 66 Prospectus Fort Matanzas National Monument," April 19; 1956, p. 24. 65. Ibid. 66. Roberts to Regional Director, February 28, 1962, CASA, pp. 1-2. 85 satisfy the visitor, and therefore research is useless. "(67) Regional Director Elbert Cox replied that the research concerns expressed represented "excellent thinking" but lacked specificity and recommendations from the superintendent; he encouraged planning, staff review and programming to secure needed commitment to research. (68) The problem remained as reflected in a communique from Manucy to Superintendent Davenport as the former departed for the regional office in Richmond. Writing in 1966 Manucy straightforwardly laid out the state of historical research as 1) goals: comprehensive history of the Castillo for the interpretive program, "constructional history" (historic structures reports) to guide preservation and restoration, and publications for interpretive purposes; and 2) limitations to achieving goals: lack of historical records and the low priority given research as qualified personnel have no time for it, though availability of historical records had greatly improved. (69) Personnel otherwise available to do research often found their time taken up with "minding the store" and junior historians often received transfers to other Park Service assignments before completing research projects. In the crush of the 400th anniversary activities interpretive supervisor and historian Luis R. Arana moved from the fort to the administrative office at the post office in order to focus on research to guide certain park development; again it pointed up a need at the moment. Arana, a native of Puerto Rico, began his career at San Juan National Historic Site as a tour leader and in 1955 accepted a transfer to Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas as chief of visitor services. Bilingual, possessing much competence in old Spanish archival research, he became the second important link for historical research at the monuments. 67. Ibid., p. 2. 68. Regional Director to Superintendent, March 13, 1962, CASA. 69. Manucy to Superintendent, March 2, 1966, CASA, p. 5. 86 Learning from Manucy and completing a graduate degree in history, Arana matured as a scholar into one with an international reputation in fortifications. (70) Knowledgeable about every facet of history associated with Matanzas and Castillo and serving as staff historian the last eleven years, Arana has provided thirty years of professional service which when linked to Manucy's career represents a continuum of nearly fifty years. A listing of research studies through 1966 reveals that topics on sites and structures predominate to guide stabilization, restoration and reconstruction.(71) The studies reflect problem-specific concerns that provide little value to a comprehensive interpretive program because of discretionary treatment of topics having modest relationship to one another, and thus only identify a modicum of the human side of history. In short, little has been done "beyond political, architectural, and constructional history."(72) Seven additional studies listed in 1967 as ongoing reflect the problem-specific type while another fourteen made the approved list by 1972.(73) Of course, being on a completion list and being completed are two different things, as time has indicated. From the mid-sixties forward a concerted effort to raise the issue and plan for historical research has resulted in the completion of several important studies for various facets of park operations and functions. (74) 70. Arana interview by Herbert Evison; Conversations with author, January, February and March 1985. 71. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas National Monument and Fort Matanzas National Monument Historical Research Management Plan, by Luis R. Arana et al. (Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1967), pp. 34-41. 72. Ibid., p. 41. 73. Superintendent's Annual Report, 1977, CASA. 74. Most notably (all U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service publications) Arana, et al. Historical Research Management Plan; Ricardo Torres-Reyes, Historic Resource Study The British Seige of St. 87 Completed principally by Historian Arana since 1976 are several lesser known, problem-specific studies for guiding interpretation, maintenance and construction. Archeology Similar in purpose to historical research at the parks, archeological research dates to the early years of National Park Service management. Under auspices of the Carnegie Foundation, W. Jack Winter explored portions of the moat, glacis and Cubo line (1937-1940); between 1939-1960 Manucy reported on several construction-related archeological investigations, including the colonial floors of the guardroom and sallyport areas. (75) Investigations in 1941 by Thor Borrensen examined foundations of the moat and fort on which he and Manucy reported. (76) In scope and design, the first major archeological investigation took place in the Castillo Courtyard (1955) under the supervision of Jean C. "Pinky" Harrington assisted by Manucy and John Griffin. Prompted by maintenance/construction needs to eliminate hazardous footing, water puddles or blowing dust, the investigation uncovered a stratigraphy of 74. (Cont.) Augustine in 1740, 1972; Ricardo Torres-Reyes, Historical Base Maps, 1972; Ricardo Torres-Reyes, Historic Resource Study British Garrison of St. Augustine 1763-1784, 1972; Historical Resource Management Plan, xeroxed copy, April 1977; The Fort Matanzas Stabilization Team, Historic Structure Report for Fort Matanzas National Monument St. John's County, Florida, 1980; Edwin C. Bearss and John C. Paige, Historic Structure Report For Castillo de San Marcos National Monument St. Johns County, Florida, 1983. 75. Kathleen A. Deagan, Excavations at the Castillo de San Marcos St. Augustine, Florida: Archeological Data in Support of Architectural Stabilization, (Tallahassee: Florida State University, December 1980), pp. 6-7; U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Notes On The Excavation of Colonial Floors In The Sally Port And Guardroom Area At Castillo De San Marcos," by Albert C. Manucy, (St. Augustine: CASA, 1960), pp. i-ii. 76. Ibid., p. 7. 88 the mid-1700's, remnants of a 1674 structure and an Indian midden lying some two feet below the surface. (77) Prior to the partial reconstruction of the Cubo Line, Griffin investigated the site and as above, carried it out as a response to a problem-specific management concern. (78) In 1966 a survey of the land area at Fort Matanzas resulted in the identification of several midden sites on Rattlesnake Island but few on Anastasia Island. (79) An assessment of the archeological collections at the Castillo by Kathleen A. Deagan concluded that most objects lacked information about provenience and thus had limited research potential. (80) Additionally, she reported useful information associated with nineteenth century architecture, the courtyard investigation and Fort Matanzas materials, but the collections needed thinning out, deaccessioning, cataloging and better security control. (81) A rather extensive set of investigations during the summer of 1975 at Fort Matanzas unearthed little information about the aboriginal occupation of the area or the watchtower and massacre sites; it did provide good information regarding eighteenth century military life, especially from the excavation of the shell middens on Rattlesnake Island. (82) The report recommended careful archeological monitoring of any construction projects on the monument grounds. 77. "Historian's Monthly Report," January 1953, CASA; "Historians Monthly Report," June 1953, CASA. 78. Ibid., p. 8; Unpublished Report, 1978, CASA. 79. Gluckman, Stephen J., "An Archeological Survey Of Fort Matanzas National Monument," Unpublished, 1966, pp. 7-8. 80. Kathleen A. Deagan, "An Assessment Of Archeological Collections At The Castillo de San Marcos, St. Augustine, Florida," (Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University, October 1975), pp. 10-15. 81. Ibid. 82. Kathleen A. Deagan, "Archeological Investigations At Fort Matanzas National Monument," (Tallahassee: Florida State University, February 1976), pp. 112-117. 89 Deagan conducted three other archeological research efforts in ]978 and 1980, the first of which sought to determine information about military life at. Fort Matanzas. This investigation focused on the interior room for evidence of built-in furniture, colonial period grade(s) and fireplace; the terreplein for information on fill, grade and flooring; and the exterior for determining data about the palmetto piling and foundation works of the fort. (83) She and Maurice Williams monitored stabilization work on Fort Matanzas in 1980, some of which turned into salvage work.(84) To guide future stabilization work at the Castillo, the Park Service contracted with Florida State University which conducted an archeological survey in 1979 under the supervision of Deagan. The project sought information about the conditions of the foundations and wall footings; the moisture level of subsurface features; the number, location and composition of floor plans; historic data on the pre-1738 floor plan; location of the wall partitions and doors; the location of interior wells and built-in furniture; and the functions that occurred in various rooms. (85) From 1937-1980 a sizeable amount of archeological baseline data amassed for the two national monuments shared the same impetus as historical research, namely problem-specific studies, a response to a somewhat narrow concern. 83. Kathleen A. Deagan, "Archeological Investigation of the Fort Matanzas Interior--1978," (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1978), pp. 2-4. 84. Maurice Williams, "Report on Monitoring of Architectural Stabilization Procedures at Fort Matanzas," (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1980); Deagan, Kathleen A., "Report on Monitor/Salvage Activities During the 1980 Architectural Stabilization Procedures at Fort Matanzas National Monument," (Tallahassee: Florida State University, April 1980), pp. 2-3, 11-12. 85. Kathleen A. Deagan, "Excavations At The Castillo De San Marcos." (Tallahassee: Florida State University, December 1980), pp. 9-10. 90 Natural Resources As the 1970s came to a close park management directed more attention to research on natural resources at Fort Matanzas. A tidal survey of high and low water lines by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ran for four months beginning in 1978; the University of South Florida studied tidal hydraulics at Matanzas Inlet in the late 1970s; a vegetative study plot for native plants on sterile soil on the intracoastal waterway began in the fall of 1978; and park staff gathered turtle survey data for the Park Service Coastal Field Research Laboratory.(86) During May 1978 the Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, initiated collecting and evaluating sea oats and a study plot, planted by the Boy Scouts of America, commenced in September.(87) Measuring waves, currents and movement of sediment by a researcher from Boston College/University of South Florida originated during the summer of 1978.(88) A five-year forest survey (1979-1984) for purposes of determining prevalent wildlife, vegetation and people usage, granted to the Forest Service—Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, opened in September 1979.(89) RACE RELATIONS Interaction between blacks and whites at both park areas took place throughout the period focused on by this study. Although historical documentation is sparse and corroborative evidence in short supply, the 86. "The National Park Service History of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments For the Year 1978," CASA, pp. 50-51. 87. Ibid., p. 52. 88. Ibid. 89. "The National Park Service History of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments For The Year 1979," CASA, p. 61. 91 topic bears comment. Visitors to the Castillo encompassed many races and nationalities and unlike at some public attractions, blacks found open admission during the War Department and early National Park Service administrations. For a number of years black fraternal organizations sought and received permission from the District Engineer to hold benefit dances on the terreplein of the Castillo and to sell ice cream and soda pop during the festivities.(90) Kahler noted, "One thousand colored Baptists who were attending a convention at Jacksonville visited Fort Marion and evidently enjoyed their visit. "(91) Practiced especially in the south, separate but supposedly equal restroom facilities existed at the Castillo though changes had to be implemented as the guides usurped the "colored women's side" for their own exclusive use.(92) Some five years later in a memorandum about activities in the Southeastern National Monuments, Superintendent Vinten reported that representatives of a recreation committee for blacks visited him about the "problem of negro recreation in the City."(93) In the report he added, "There is no race problem in this community and the negro leaders appreciate any help they can be given in working out their problems. "(94) The single biggest racial episode faced by St. Augustine occurred in 1964 when black and white activists began lunch counter sit-ins and other 90. Brown to District Engineer, July 30, 1920, War Department Records, CASA; Brown to District Engineer, August 11, 1921, War Department Records, CASA; District Engineer to Brown, August 13, 1921, War Department Records, CASA; Brown to District Engineer, August 30, 1921, War Department Records, CASA; Ferguson to Brown, June 18, 1923, War Department Records, CASA; Brown to District Engineer, June 22, 1923, War Department Records, CASA; District Engineer to Brown, June 25, 1923, War Department Records, CASA. 91. "Superintendent's Monthly Report," September 12, 1936, RG 79, NA. 92. Freeland to Manucy, November 17, 1939, CASA. 93. Vinten to Director, October 5, 1944, National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 94. Ibid. 92 nonviolent demonstrations. Planned protests began in 1963 when local National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) officials sought to prevent Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson from dedicating several restored historic houses if blacks were not included in the activities. (95) Blacks succeeded in participating after the Vice-President said he would not engage in a "segregated event. "(96) Black leaders also attempted to prevent federal funds from being used in the quadricentennial celebration of 1965.(97) Part of a national movement for civil rights, the demonstrations met with forceful opposition as members of the White Citizens Council and Ku Klux Klan countered the black activists led by local blacks and Southern Christian Leadership Conference officials Hosea Williams and Martin Luther King, Jr., Nobel Peace Prize recipient that year. From the late spring throughout the summer demonstrations kept a steady pace and several times Superintendent Roberts issued permits for black activist rallies on the monument grounds in St. Augustine. (98) Most demonstrations and sit-ins took place on the city square and the lunch counter/restaurants nearby. White citizens of St. Augustine found the negative publicity of the nations oldest city portrayed as a racist community especially galling. (99) Several national news gathering agencies contacted Park Service offices to gain an assessment of the impact that racial unrest had on park visitation. (100) Writing in July, Roberts reported that "Local businessmen agreed to abide by the new Civil Rights law, however St. 95. David R. Colburn, Racial Change and Community Crisis St. Augustine, Florida, 1877-1980, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), pp. 32-33. 96. Ibid. 97. Ibid., pp. 33-34, 47. 98. "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report," April 1964, May 1964, CASA; Colburn, pp. 73, 75. 99. Colburn, p. 69. 100. "Superintendent's Monthly Report," June 1964, CASA. 93 Augustine was still plagued with racial unrest. "(101) Some restaurants served blacks while others closed; the turmoil caused visitation and fee collections to fall at the Castillo, while at Fort Matanzas visitation rose over that of the previous year, though not nearly the percentage it did in 1965.(102) (See Appendix G) During the post-1964 period Superintendent Roberts commented that "If they [civil rights leaders] come again, they would be met with the same reaction. The attitudes haven't changed. "(103) Grudging adherence to the law and a very slow process of social adjustment began; the quadricentennial year of 1965 contrasted sharply with the previous year of racial unrest in St. Augustine. Minority personnel at Castillo and Fort Matanzas through the years number several blacks including maintenance and interpretive division staff. The most notable black in a management position, Martha B. Aikens, served as superintendent from 1980-1983. As the first black and woman superintendent, Aikens described her reception as "guarded acceptance" and "wait and see," somewhat of a change in community attitude from sixteen years before and the long, hot summer of 1964.(104) 101. "Superintendent's Monthly Report," July 1964, CASA. Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act on July 2, 1964. 102. Ibid. "Superintendents Monthly Report," August 1964, September 1964, CASA. 103. Colburn, p. 182. 104. Aikens, telephone interview. 94 CHAPTER 5: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS Closing in on the end of another century the two coquina structures of Castillo and Fort Matanzas face a future of uncertainty. Unlike the late nineteenth century when the question of preservation initially arose in regard to surplus military posts, the twenty first century portends new conditions for preservation. The major factors tempering conditions are embedded in political and economic currents which influence and are influenced by the demographic makeup of the United States. At the present time a change in philosophy governing the use of park resources is observable. No longer is the commitment to public enjoyment and preservation of resources, rather the market should determine use. In the instance of non-renewable resources such as historic structures the threat seems clear. Visitor use, closely tied to market forces, seems likely to increase given the graying of America, discretionary income and the alternatives of travel and/or retirement in a sun-belt state such as Florida. Likewise fiscal restraint serves up another major factor influencing conditions for park resources. Maintenance and protection of cultural and natural resources rely heavily upon adequate funding for proper management. Within the Park Service the heritage and tradition of large, natural parks predominates over cultural resource parks, resulting in a lower priority and second class citizenship for the latter. Currently fiscal policies have severely curtailed personnel in parks who interpret, protect and educate the public about management of resources. A lack of maintenance staff, rangers, interpreters and permanent employees to properly orient volunteers in parks ultimately will affect natural and cultural resources plus visitor use facilities. An oft observed phenomena of late and one sure to worsen is encroachment. Park boundaries are imaginary lines toward which creep commercial and residential development; extractive industries; pollutants which contaminate the air or resources; and ecosystem imbalance that 95 cause differing successions of plants and animals which create problems for management of park resources. Though not unique in mere fact of impinging just on Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas national monuments, nevertheless all of the factors noted may be identified there at present, or potentially in years to come. Coquina, the building material of both forts, is a non-renewable resource threatened by the number of visitors and by airborne pollutants. Though very hard on the surface, once eroded a brittleness and deterioration endangers the original fabric. Illustrative of market forces heavy visitor use wears away the resource and creates a scenario for regulation of visitation that increases each year in a state bathed in tourism. Perhaps careful monitoring of wear, air quality, visitor statistics and even a fee structure to limit numbers should be options considered in protecting historic fabric. No longer needed at either national monument is the labor-intensive maintenance of years past. A regular cyclic maintenance program can provide necessary preservation, however, alternative funding sources other than annual Park Service budgets should be sought as fiscal restraint quickens. Experts in detection of wear and methods of preservation need to be available regularly to assist the park staff in the extremely important enterprise of preservation. A primary concern at the Castillo that transcends all the years it has been preserved as a cultural resource, relates to its location in the heart of a city dependent on tourism as the economic base. Because of a sizable land base surrounding the fort (portion of the old military reservation), community groups and individuals desire the grounds for many different uses. The demands have been constant through the years and will continue to occur and threaten the resources and the atmosphere of the setting. During the Park Service years, management has evolved toward less use of the grounds and fort proper, by individuals and community groups than did the War Department - Historical Society management. Managing the resources in light of current and future 96 market demands requires building a local constituency favoring control and an interpretive program that educates the public: about the setting, context, and protection for a national treasure. Moderation and awareness will be difficult to accomplish given the present philosophy of market forces determining use and fiscal restraint forcing reduced staff, therefore less protection and interpretation of the resources will be available. Likewise with increased visitation a quota system may need implementation at some future point as deterioration of resources becomes more apparent. At Fort Matanzas a principal adverse effect resides with encroaching development, most of which centers on condominiums and apartment complexes. Existing complexes along the ocean front butt up against the boundary and forcefully intrude on the landscape. The Park Service should learn from a lack of foresight in the past to seek a buffer from future development on Anastasia Island, Rattlesnake Island and the mainland to the west. Local constituencies and friends of the parks need to be mobilized and innovative means sought to prevent recurrence of earlier poor judgement. Market forces and fiscal policies also will be detrimental at Matanzas unless vigilance and long range planning are evidenced. Over the years following preservation and restoration of the forts, little in the way of systematic efforts to forge broad-based and formalized support groups has been attempted. To counteract forces identified above, much more needs to be done to assist park management and develop a cadre of volunteers sensitive to the need of protecting the resources at Castillo and Matanzas. Consistent with this is the need by the Park Service to train staff in ways to prepare volunteers for positions in parks. Little formal preparation goes into orientation and training those who train volunteers or the volunteers themselves, and little in the way of substantial recognition is given such people whom the Park Service has increasingly come to rely upon. Ancillary to support groups and training volunteers, is the dispelling of the notion that parks are fiefdoms where federal bureaucrats act unilaterally without consideration of 97 community setting and relations. A park must be a good neighbor and the entire staff must assist in the effort, yet at the same time not be compromised in making the resource vulnerable because of outside; pressures. Over the years various managers of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas have been at odds with the community to the detriment of all concerned, while others have been assigned there for such short periods of time that little rapport with local residents could be established before transfers occurred. Both military fortifications have suffered as well from the fact of being parks with nationally significant cultural resources. As such they are of lower priority than large natural parks, an outcome which the National Park System perpetuates, and with which the public so identifies. The results often may be observed in levels of funding and various priorities established for parks with cultural resources and those with natural resources. Little effort is made to educate staff and visitors alike or to demonstrate the interrelated nature of cultural and natural resources, in fact artificial distinctions are often established in training classes, exhibitry, interpretive programs and selection of management for the national parks. Such has been the case with Matanzas and Castillo where managers most often have backgrounds other than history, archeology or historic architecture and few staff members have cultural resource backgrounds. Interpretive programs have focused primarily on history and little on archeology or the interrelatedness of history and the natural environment. Little in the way of educating the public of the need to support the National Park System through the years has been effected, or for particular support at the Castillo or Fort Matanzas. Presently interpretation needs to formulate plans for the Columbian celebration of 1992 which would be in keeping with several other multi-centennial festivities of St. Augustine. It represents a wonderful opportunity to build support for and obtain funding to assist in preserving and enhancing the resources of the two parks. It can educate the public to several worthy ideas too. 98 Park managers at both locations have not had the necessary assistance of specialists to aid in protecting resources. Professional advice in curation of objects, historic architecture, maintenance of the historic fabric and natural resources, especially at Fort Matanzas, has been sporadic and uneven. Park staff has often been hard pressed to meet daily and routine responsibilities with little time for specific and particular resource needs. Shortage of time, budgetary restraints, delay and deterioration may be noted through the years which has an impact on both natural and cultural resources. It has become more and more apparent that the National Park Service cannot carry out its mission without substantial public support. For Matanzas and Castillo and the other parks in the system, it means assiduously seeking to broaden public support, especially from local citizens. To do so has many implications for management ranging from fostering good public relations to protecting resources and educating the public through enhanced interpretive programs. Not only presenting the park story but the national significance of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas, and the entire National Park System must be emphasized. To do less is to ignore lessons from the past about our significant resources and permit gradual decline, something we do not wish for our collective legacy and for posterity. 99 APPENDICES 101 APPENDIX A: Proclamation by President Calvin Coolidge Declaring National Monument, October 15, 1924: Fort Marion, Fort Matanzas. 102 tnioiutyp. ARCA3 UN LLK1AIN MILI1AKY KtitKVAlIUN5 DECLARED NATIONAL MONUMENTS.) BT> the ipreeloent of the TUniteb States of Bmertca H {proclamation. TTTIIEREAS, there are various military reservations under the control of the * * Secretary uf War which comprise areas of historic and scientific interest; ANLI WHEREAS, by section 2 of the Act of Congress approved June 8, 1006 (34 Stat. 225) the President is authorized 'in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmark*, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that aro situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of tho Unites! States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and manage ment of the objects to he protected"; < Now THEREFORE, I, Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States of America, under authority of the said Act of Congress do hereby declare and pro claim the hereinafter designated areas with the historic structures and objects thereto appertaining, and any other object or objects specifically designates), within the following military reservations to be national monuments: FORT WOOD, NEW YORK The site of the Statue of liberty Enlightening the World, the foundations of which are built in the form of an eleven-pointed star and clearly define the area comprising about two and one-half acres. CASTLE PINCKNEY. Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. The entire reservation, comprising three and one-half acres situated on Shutes Folly Island at the mouth of Cooper River opposite the southern extremity of the city of Charleston and about ono mile distant therefrom. FORT PULASKT. GEORGIA The entire area comprising the site of tho old fortifications which are clearly defined by ditches and embankments, which inclose about twenty acres. FORT MARION. FLORIDA Th* entire area comprising IS.09 acres situated in the city of Saint Augustine, Florid*. FORT MATANZAS, FLORIDA An ace* of one acre comprising within it the site of th* old fortification which is situated on a marsh island south of the present main channel of tho Mltsnisn River in tho southeast quarter of section 14, Township • South, Range 30 East, about 13 miles from the city of Saint Auguetme, and about one sails from Mat oases Inlet. . fp WUtoUm utMUE**C, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seedmtf the United States to be affixed. D»NB at the city of Washington this fifteenth day of October, in tho year of our Load on* thousand nine h—dred and twenty-four, and [SEAL.] of the Independence of tho United State* of America the not hundred and forty-aiath. CALVIN COOLIDGE Fry fed frattttont: Joanna C. GREW rieriny Secretary of Stale. (No. 1713.) APPENDIX B: Executive Order No. 6228: National Monuments to be Administered by the National Park Service, July 28, 1933. 104 [Copy I EXECUTIVE ORDER Organization of Executive Agencies WHEREAS executive order No. 6166 dated June 10, 1933, issued pursuant to the authority of Section 16 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (Public [Law], No. 428--47 Stat. 1517) provides in Section 2 as follows: "All functions of administration of public buildings, reservations, national parks, national monuments, and national cemeteries are consolidated in an office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations in the Department of the Interior, at the head of which shall be a Director of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations; except that where deemed desirable there may be excluded from this provision any public building or reservation which is chiefly employed as a facility in the work of a particular agency. This transfer and consolidation of functions shall include, among others, those of the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior and the National Cemeteries and Parks of the War Department which are located within the continental limits of the United States. National Cemeteries located in foreign countries shall be transferred to the Department of State, and those located in insular possessions under the jurisdiction of the War Department shall be administered by the Bureau of Insular Affairs of the War Department." and; WHEREAS to facilitate and expedite the transfer and consolidation of certain units and agencies contemplated thereby, it is desirable to make more explicit said Section 2 of the aforesaid executive order of June 10, 1933, insofar as the same relates to the transfer of agencies now administered by the War Department: 105 NOW, THEREFORE, said executive order No. 6166, dated June 10, 1933, is hereby interpreted as follows: 1. The cemeteries and parks of the War Department transferred to the Interior Department are as follows: National Monuments Big Hole Battlefield, Beaverhead County, Montana. Cabrillo Monument, Ft. Rosecrans, California. Castle Pinckney, Charleston, South Carolina. Father Millet Cross, Fort Niagara, New York. Fort Marion, St. Augustine, Florida. Fort Matanzas, Florida. Fort Pulaski, Georgia. Meriwether Lewis, Hardin County, Tennessee. Mound City Group, Chillicothe, Ohio. Statue of Liberty, Fort Wood, New York. 2. Pursuant to Section 22 of said executive order it is hereby ordered that the transfer from the War Department of national cemeteries other than those named above be, and the same is hereby postponed until further order. 3. Also pursuant to Section 22 of said executive order it is hereby ordered that the transfer of national cemeteries located in foreign countries from the War Department to the Department of State and the transfer of those located in insular possessions under the jurisdiction of the War Department to the Bureau of Insular Affairs of said Department be, and the same are hereby postponed until further order. FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT. The White House. July 28, 1933. [No. 6228] •Executive Order abridged 106 APPENDIX C: Name Change: Fort Marion to Castillo de San Marcos, June 5, 1942. 107 Calendar No. 1452 T7TI.CONQRESS If V} OAOT »—• ti. K. Swot [Report No. 1404] IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Ocrutra 1ft, 1M1 Rr».l twice AH J rvfrrml to the Cotuuiittee on Public L*ml* tnd Surreyt MAT 2ft, IMS Rr|M>rtetl by Mr. HATCH, without »n»en«iinent AN ACT T<> eliaiufe the tlfsipialHMi of tltr Fort Marion National Motm- lllt'llt, in I lit* Stale of Florida, and for other puqKisc*. 1 lie it enacted by the Senate and flounc of Representor '1 tivc* of the Unittyl State* of America in Conyre.** cwiembled, '.'. That the area now within the Fort Marion National Mnnn- 4 incut, in the State of Florida, >hall hereafter he known ft* 5 the "Castillo de San Marcos National Moiiuinent", under 6 which nnnie the aforesaid national monument shall be entitled 7 to receive and In use all money* heretofore or hereafter 8 appropriated for the Fort Marion National Monument. Passed the House of Representatives October 15, 1941. Attest: SOUTH TRIMBLE, Clerk, 108 APPENDIX D: License to St. Augustine Historical Society & Institute of Science, April 16, 1928. 109 11IM II THS SICEZTART 07 WAR, under and by virtue of the authority In aim •eated, hereby grants to the ST. AUGOSTIKE HISTOEICAL SO CI FIT AMD IMSTITuTX 07 SCIIMCI, St. Augustine, Florida, hereinafter designated aa tne Society, a license, revocable at will by toe Secretary of War, and aubject to the provlalone and conaltlona hereinafter aet fortn, to occupy and use for tne purposes of said society and lte museum, and for tne benefit of tne puolic, tne following described portion Of TOST MARIO*, St. Augustine, Florida, and the military reservation pertaining tnereto, viu 1. The Society shall be authorised to occupy and uae aa executive offices and repository and display rooms the following numoered and lettered rooms, namely, rooms 1, 2, C, 9, 10, a> 11, and tne Society shall nave access to all otner parts of the reservation and to all otner rooms in the Fort that have special historical interest, exclu sive of those rooms and parts used specifically for Government purposes; provided, that tne Society shall make no essential changes In the Fort or the rooms occupied by it under authority of this license, and tne United states shall be put to no expense whatever by reason of such occupancy. 2. Tne Society snail be allowed to maintain a registration book Inside tne Fort, and to request visitors to register, provlded. that registration snail not be regarded as a condition precedent to admission to tne Fort, or to any part thereof open to visitors. 3. The Society shall be limited in the articles to be sold to those wnicn have been dealt in by it at Fort Marlon during previous years, provided tnat all such articles have been approved for sale by Tne quartermaster General, or oil duly authorised representative. 4. Wo postcard, photograph, pamphlet, guide book, or souvenir sold In tne Fort shall contain any advertising matter of any kind tnat in the opinion of The quartermaster General is not in keeping wltn the dignity of Fort Marlon as a national historical monument. 5. Suitable tables and cases for tne display of postcards and otner mercnandlse hereinbefore mentioned shall be maintained by tne Society in rooms reserved for lte use and la such places in tne Sally port as Tne quartermaster General may designate, provided, tnat tne sale or display of such mercnandlse shall not be permitted in any form or manner whatsoever outside of tne rooms and places eo reserved or designated. 6. Salesmen will conduct tnemeelves la a courteous and orderly manner, and will avoid conveying the Impression that they are employed by the Federal Government. They snail not call their articles for sale, nor solicit visitors to purchase same, but will answer questions and explain toelr wares to visitors, who may request such information or explanation, and If any salesman or otner employee snail by word or act, otner than tne authorised display of such cards, photographs and other mercnandlse, solicit any person to purchase the same, he snail be denied tne privilege of tne fort and reservation by order of Tne quartermaster General. 7. The Fort and the rooms, as designated in paragrapn one ante, shall be open to visitors on each ordinary week day between tne hours of 9 A.M. and 6 P.M., and on Sundays and holidays from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M., provided, tnat on agreement between The Quartermaster General and tne Curator of the Society, tne hours above named may be altered from time to time to meet tne best interests of all concerned, and provided further, that tne Society may close 110 any or all of tne rooms specially reserved for lta use wnen eucn closing may become necessary for re-arrangement of tne exnlbits, or for business meetings of tba Soclaty, or for any other necessary purposes. During tne hours aoove specified, eucn employees as may ba necessary for tne comfort and convenience of vlaltora, and for tna protection of tna Soclaty exhibits snail be present at tnelr assigned placet of duty. In order that tne exhibits and otner property may ba secure from theft and vandalism, the Society Is authorized to use lta own discretion as to tna admission to Its rooms and exhlolts of visitors not accompanied by soma responsible representative of tne Society, or by tne Govern ment caretaker hereinafter provided for. 8. The society snail license and maintain In attendance at all times wnen tne fort Is open to the public, a suitable number of guides, provided, that not mora than five sucn licensed guides shall be In attendance and on duty at any time. Each guide snail wear a badge properly Inscribed and numbarsd, and no person, otnar than the government caretaker, snail ba permitted to act ae guide unless licensed by the Society. P. The guides snail conduct themselves In a courteous and orderly manner. They snail not annoy visitors by urging tnalr services upon them, nor snail they exact fees from vlaltora, but tney may accept gratutles, tne amount of wnlcn. If any, snail ba entirely within tna discretion of such visitors, it a suitable point In tne usual circuit, guides may distribute to visitors neatly printed cards, or may make an oral announcement concerning tne method of payment for guide services, provided, that tne phrasing of such card or oral announcement shall have oeen previously approved by The Quartermaster General and snail tnereaftar be rigidly adhered to without change. When conducting visitors, guides shall show all parts of the Tort and reservation open to public Inspection, end shall point out and properly describe objects and points of Interest. Tne officers of tne society will be held strictly responsible at all times for tne conduct and competence of tnalr guloaa and employees, lay guide guilty of undue sullcltlng or dlscountesy to any visitor, or who falls to give proper service. Irrespective of the amount of compensation paid him by said visitor, shall, upon a sacond such offense or upon request from The Quartermaster General, be dismissed and his license revoked. 10. The Quartermaster General shall represent tne Secretary of War and all business between the War Department and the Soclaty shall ba transacted torougn him. 11. The Quartermaster General shall be represented locally by a caretaker of tne Tort and reservation, wno may act as guide wltnout a license from tne Society, provided, that he snail wear a sultaoiy engraved badge markedly differing in design from that worn by licensed guides, and provided further, that ha aaail not lntarfera with or supplant any sucn licensed guide, and tnat during tne hours when the Tort is open to the public, as specified In paragraph 7 ante, he snail be considered as a supernumerary guide or extra. » 12. In consideration of the foregoing rights and privileges, the Society shall, under the direction of The Quartermaster General, make sucn minor repair• to the Tort and appurtenant structures, walks, and paths as may from time to time become necessary for their maintenance. It shall maintain the entire reservation In an orderly and sanitary condition satisfactory to The Quartermaster General, shall mow the grass on the reservation and trim the trees and shrubbery at such intervals as may be necessary to kwep the reservation In a sightly condition at all times satisfactory to The Quartermaster General,' shall light and neat to such extent as may ba necessary all rooms used by tno society and by tne caretaker, or open to the public, shall provide each toilet facilities and supplies as may be required for the convenience of vlaltora, and shall. If required by The Quartermaster General, reimburse tne United States In the amount of $720.00 per annum to defray the propor tionate part of salary of caretaker of the United States on said reservation, provided, that the total expenditure made by the Society In any year for such minor repairs, maintenance and care of the Tort, Its appurtenant structures and surround ing reservation shall not exceed $3,000.00 per annum,"and providing further, that, tna Society snail maintain accounts covering all expenditures made by It for the purposes hereinbefore Indicated, with suitable vouchers In form and manner as The Quartermaster General may direct, and shall submit a statement of account annually to Tne Quartermaster General for transmission to the Secretary of War, and provided furtner. that for the foregoing purpoeee the year snail begin with the firet day of July, 1928. Ill 13. The Quartermaster General and hie duly authorized representative shall at all times hare access to the Fort, including rooms reserved for use of the society. 14. This license may be revoked at will by the Secretary of War, or it may be relinquished at will by the Society, provided, that, in the event of such revocation or relinquishment, the Society shall, within 30 days after the date of written notice of such revocation or relinquishment, remove all merchanftise, exhibits, furniture and fixtures pertaining to it, shall properly clean the premises occupied by it under this license, and turn the same over in good order and condition to the caretaker of the Fort; and provided further, that any sum which may have to be expended after the revocation or relinquishment in putting any premises or property hereby authorized to be occupied or need in as good condition for use by the United States as it is at this date, shall be repaid by said Society on demand. 15. Unless otherwise terminated as hereinbefore provided, or renewed upon the application of the Society and approved by the Secretary of War, this license shall terminate five years from July 1, 1928. IS* WTTSZSS WH2RS0F this license has been executed this 16th day of April, 1928. (Sgd) C. B. BOBBIfi-S C. B. R0BBI5S, The Assistant Secretary of War. THIS LIOBHSS is accepted under the terms and conditions therein set forth this 21st day of April, 1928. ST. AOGUSTXBX BISTOBICAL SOCIITT AST) INSTITUTX OF SCISHCX. BTl Frederick s. Vaill 112 APPENDIX E: Superintendents, 1933 to Present. 113 Superintendents Castillo de San Marcos National Monument (CASA) and Fort Matanzas National Monument (FOMA) 1933 to date Herbert E. Kahler Custodian CASA/FOMA 1933 - Oct 34 Actg Supt CASA/FOMA and Oct 34 - Aug 36 Adm Coordinator Castle Pinckney, Fts. Pulaski and Jefferson Supt CASA/FOMA Aug 36 - Jan 37 Supt CASA/FOMA and Jan 37 - May 39 Coord Supt Southeastern National Monuments (SENM) (Castle Pinckney, Fts. Pulaski, Jefferson and Frederica, Ocmulgee) Edward D. Freeland Supt CASA/FOMA and May 39 - Dec 41 Coord Supt SENM C. Raymond Vinten Supt CASA and Jan 42 - Sept 53 Coord Supt SENM (includ ing Everglades NP 1947) Edward J. Eaton Supt FOMA Jan 42 - Sept 53 C. Raymond Vinten Supt CASA/FOMA Fort Sept 53 - Oct 57 Caroline (FOCA) Oct 57 - July 61 Supt CASA/FOMA Bertrum C. Roberts Supt CASA/FOMA July 61 - Aug 64 Supt CASA/FOMA/FOCA Aug 64 - Dec 65 L. Theodore Davenport Supt CASA/FOMA/FOCA Feb 66 - Feb 71 George F. Schesventer Supt CASA/FOMA/FOCA Mar 71 - Nov 71 Supt CASA/FOMA Nov 71 - Oct 80 Martha B. Aikens Supt CASA/FOMA Oct 80 - Nov 83 Barbara J. Griffin Supt CASA/FOMA Mar 84 - date 114 APPENDIX F: Senior Historians, 1933 to Present. 115 Careers of the Senior Historians Albert C. Manucy Historian CASA Nov 38 - Nov 57 Regional Interpretive Nov 57 - Aug 62 Planner with station at CASA Fulbright Scholar in Sept 62 - July 63 Spain Historian CASA for July 63 - May 66 MISSION 66/Quadricen- tennial projects Luis R. Arana Assistant Historian CASA Apr 55 - Nov 57 (visitor services) Historian CASA (super Nov 57 - Sept 62 vision) Leave without pay for Sept 62 - July 63 study at University of Florida Historian CASA Aug 63 - May 72 Historian Florida- May 72 - Dec 73 Caribbean District Office (Tallahassee) with station at CASA Historian CASA Dec 73 - date 116 APPENDIX G: Annual Visitation. 117 Annual Visitation: Castillo de San Marcos National Monument January 1916 to July 1925 July 1935 to July 1986 Fort Matanzas National Monument January 1937 to July 1986 118 VISITATION—CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 January 2,877 5,040 3,580 3,281 4,011 4,675 2,710 3,714 5,653 5,884 February 5,198 6,646 5,035 5,567 4,686 5,746 4,593 4,951 6,443 7,511 March 3,534 7,576 6,582 6,769 6,130 6,993 5,789 4,771 5,086 8,616 April - - - - 3,408 3,534 2,992 3,267 4,926 4,818 May - - 1,090 1,294 1,007 1,430 2,473 1,282 2,778 1,915 June - - 700 780 645 - 905 1,202 2,120 5,431 July _ - 732 799 491 1,059 1,003 1,445 2,999 9,015 August - - 769 739 728 1,533 1,133 2,270 3,367 - September - - 502 684 648 1,221 788 1,332 3,322 - October - - 503 808 846 - 1,149 2,799 - November - - 743 - 1,620 1,105 2,129 4,621 4,242 December 1,908 1,740 2,910 3,024 2,257 2,670 5,802 4,630 Source: Castillo de San Marcos National Monument files, carbon copies of U.S. Engineer District Office, Jacksonville (Florida), Box 25, Documents 1 through 60. VISITATION—CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 January 18,258 27,788 34,537 25,289 22,860 27,334 19,720 12,105 13,681 February 21,761 28,933 40,508 28,065 28,481 32,689 15,002 10,413 14,315 March 24,622 30,749 32,248 29,823 26,397 31,925 24,381 12,377 12,463 April 18,018 18,872 20,056 17,018 15,855 29,023 20,127 12,803 13,724 May 8,987 11,001 11,496 9,263 11,076 19,831 12,295 11,449 11,047 June 14,365 14,827 17,976 14,955 16,436 25,225 9,799 10,165 8,993 July 17,809 24,225 27,479 31,586 24,617 25,881 35,416 8,940 12,259 12,436 August 22,420 26,686 30,633 21,550* 26,311 27,143 32,639 7,789 13,324 11,400 September 9,966 15,426 14,017 11,572 11,478 15,444 15,265 8,428 10,169 10,384 October 9,985 10,870 11,384 9,420 10,115 11,471 18,013 10,877 10,836 10,480 November 10,453 13,058 14,797 11,254 10,777 11,463 16,118 13,506 10,671 10,743 December 19,540 27,860 33,080 20,694 24,875 25,339 24,227 10,120 10,657 10,674 Total 89,873 224,127 263,560 262,897 232,586 237,846 307,705 160,964 137,228 140,340 *Entrance fee inaugurated 119 VISITATION—CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 January 10,296 27,801 28,864 23,810 30,309 31,011 31,427 39,032 39,764 40,014 February 12,225 35,411 31,065 26,810 35,514 38,584 34,659 46,174 45,022 47,528 March 12,622 32,867 28,461 27,726 34,289 32,858 39,142 47,025 44,680 44,442 April 12,612 25,703 21,634 18,871 23,520 28,116 27,535 43,979 43,594 46,477 May 10,966 20,647 16,017 13,862 18,805 20,526 27,248 32,548 33,368 38,529 June 11,398 21,189 25,361 21,989 27,573 32,341 47,270 55,615 62,351 55,983* July 14,551 19,761 35,612 35,327 41,581 54,202 68,373 73,335 78,421 69,070 August 16,704 22,998 33,242 34,180 36,279 44,626 58,508 62,619 67,851 60,850 September 13,454 15,054 14,113 15,880 14,467 17,530 24,616 25,750 28,661 25,745 October 14,542 13,113 13,677 18,531 14,958 17,873 24,000 25,831 26,940 24,422 November 17,856 16,406 15,630 16,029 15,224 16,530 18,477 26,200 25,794 21,255 December 19,467 22,251 20,821 22,923 25,405 23,482 28,995 37,138 37,234 29,222 Total 166,693 273,201 284,498 275,938 317,924 357,679 430,250 515,246 533,680 503,537 *6/16 fee increased from 10* to 25* VISITATION—CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 January 29,236 27,540 27,001 23,661 18,475 18,917 15,923 15,864 16,707 20,889 February 34,787 34,821 35,210 20,457 21,714 23,363 21,481 25,947 21,479 26,767 March 36,578 37,603 36,322 24,220 29,405 22,969 26,975 27,605 32,361 36,611 •April 41,440 36,412 39,855 31,815 24,640 33,248 33,145 38,245 44,115 26,174 *May 32,188 27,219 30,671 25,740 20,968 26,724 23,039 26,042 26,419 24,832 •June 58,769 59,808 53,356 50,580 47,221 50,251 51,108 54,967 63,689 33,838 •July 83,933 77,841 74,340 66,385 54,679 68,698 73,191 79,182 84,174 43,908 August 65,941 55,171 64,538 56,530 67,318 59,063 62,794 74,796 78,449 44,065 ••September 23,618 21,416 21,955 16,377 18,062 13,688 17,655 18,136 18,855 11,409 October 22,445 16,880 20,692 17,347 14,441 16,480 16,459 16,643 15,852 12,827 November 21,900 16,861 17,787 17,798 13,932 13,789 16,719 16,598 15,228 13,798 December 28,051 29,188 29,450 22,571 25,350 19,157 27,117 22,591 26,296 27,252 Total 478,886 440,760 451,177 373,481 356,205 366,347 385,606 416,605 443,624 322,370 •Widening of Fort Marion Circle underway. ••U.S. Highway #1 bypass opened. 120 VISITATION—CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 January 20,122 20,387 20,496 17,456 13,147 20,053 25,936 29,344 32,824 26,382 February 23,429 26,263 26,352 24,943 18,496 24,746 29,744 36,429 42,594 29,605 March 24,668 38,078 48,093 31,627 29,338 44,875 38,237 61,352 58,000 33,282 April 35,455 47,774* 32,658 43,862 36,926 39,831 38,302 69,281 78,958 52.657 May 24,979 30,026 27,344 29,092 31,277**** 35,088 38,705 47,402 54,333 38,757 June 56,554 62,177 60,617** 61,154 66,349 69,984 66,293 100,247 88,845 68,350 July 100,436 92,971 88,917 87,872 90,329 93,549 102,570 130,049 109,202 92,317 August 90,127 82,388 82,742 76,031 84,241 86,542 88,630 109,107 99,022 84,130 September 20,949 19,499 21,360 19,772 18,001 22,483 24,585 32,225 32,746 28,277 October 18,765 17,575 16,641 14,217 15,962 18,917 22,734* 29,658 33,784 29,642 November 20,325 19,572 18,604 15,197*** 22,104 22,057 26,565 28,142 36,365 33.599 December 34,042 31,811 29,928 25,069 36,780 34,049 42,824 44,912 32,767 49,117 Total 469,851 488,521 473,752 446,292 462,950 512,174 565,125 718,148 699,440 566,115 *Fee raised to 50* effective 4/1/66 •Disney World in Orlando opened 10/1/71 ••Opening 1-95 between Bayard & Pellicer Creek 6/1 ***CASA closed Thurs & Fri effective 11/15 ****CASA began opening Thurs & Fri 5/8/69 VISITATION—CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 January 35,822 43,189 32,415 36,121 36,666 33,776 36,904 34,686 35,804 32,617 February 50,526 58,062 46,602 46,441 47,952 44,945 44,991 45,893 47,637 50,717 March 80,140 72,031 64,358 85,074 74,671 62,527 66,730 65,994 74,474 72,480 April 61,897 79,391 70,157 69,150 77,245 69,208 74,283 75,345 72,661 76,305 May 48,149 55,368 50,065 60,472 53,383 52,165 59,364 57,126 59,792 59,687 June 89,119 92,632 81,530 95,609 71,850 69,678 72,827 71,673 80,623 79,977 July 115,121 131,346 111,556 122,633 83,496 78,346 86,696 91,012 91,836 96,242 August 102,682 **98,806 92,420 98,794 76,433 70,650 77,770 75,405 70,001 74,516 September 27,373 33,748 34,503 37,418 30,611 29,017 36,530 35,745 35,055 38,749 October 31,041 36,929 38,194 39,322 33,450 33,303 37,887 37,847 42,930 42,637 November 36,515 34,223 37,712 41,357 37,462 37,462 +37,270 38,570 41,460 38,851 December •58,034 44,870 43,854 42,246 39,489 40,623 35,841 43,583 33,798 43,554 Total 736,419 780,595 703,366 774,637 663,097 621,700 667,093 672,879 686,071 706,332 •Visitation for December 28, 1975 was 7,772 (highest day on record). **Began adding 2% non-recreation visitation (external visitor factor) for grounds and City Gate. +Nov. 23, 1981 - Because President Reagan vetoed the budget presented to him by Congress, the Fort was closed at 2 p.m. and employees sent home. 121 VISITATION—CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 January 32,825 38,368 February 48,329 51,760 March 71,059 82,549 April 75,568 73,744 May 61,440 67,827 June 78,338 83,939 July 96,419 August 79,803 September 35,114 October 39,961 November 46,789 December 47,581 Total 713,226 122 VISITATION —FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 January 686 1,857 1,574 1,686 714 130 156 196 February 929 2,041 2,062 1,996 819 112 163 189 March 2,612 2,170 2,463 1,991 916 181 156 183 April 1,909 3,169 1,523 1,552 651 226 183 196 May 1,087 1,904 1,121 1,228 496 153 173 204 June 1,994 1,245 1,095 1,095 252 196 187 221 July 2,925 2,207 2,218 1,673 254 163 185 213 August 2,135 1,809 2,379 1,428 163 193 234 273 September 1,497 1,058 1,478 916 163 231 206 532 October 3,201 1,243 1,098 1,098 763 138 153 171 November 902 1,031 987 894 608 122 234 206 December 849 1,576 1,584 1,436 941 120 172 232 VISITATION—FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 January 821 1,062 986 1,495 1,412 1,365 2,635 2,523 3,816 February 963 1,045 1,027 1,640 1,721 2,416 2,826 2,751 3,740 March 1,657 1,278 1,296 1,663 1,554 3,148 3,730 3,911 4,728 April 1,262 1,148 1,303 1,456 2,013 2,553 3,156 4,253 5,116 May 898 974 946 1,061 1,289 2,223 2,384 3,546 4,268 June 1,272 1,345 1,286 1,391 1,491 3,070 3,871 5,130 5,461 July 1,319 1,308 1,361 1,956 1,931 4,513 4,865 5,811 6,815 August 1,376 1,432 1,524 1,831 1,286 4,393 4,632 5,628 6,995 September 853 792 1,048 1,042 410 1,993 1,562 3,000 2,500 October 381 831 814 993 910 442 1,210 1,865 2,980 2,010 November 416 886 913 924 963 430 1,452 1,621 2,857 1,965 December 468 1,143 1,108 1,110 997 953 1,728 2,541 3,251 3,065 Total 11,686 13,244 13,612 16,562 15,977 26,486 34,051 35,598 45,659 50,479 123 VISITATION — FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 January 3,801 3,620 3,543 3,982 4,087 4,237 4,721 3,294 5,892 6,202 February 3,547 4,282 4,673 3,266 4,831 4,670 5,197 5,488 5,329 8,354 March 4,469 5,244 5,425 5,063 6,323 4,212 6,639 6,451 7,140 10,044 April 5,208 5,032 5,536 5,021 6,429 5,616 6,853 6,507 7,260 8,521 May 4,310 3,122 3,612 3,740 5,271 5,288 5,512 5,295 5,449 8,173 June 5,483 5,921 6,732 6,547 8,511 10,363 8,193 9,576 9,227 11,368 July 7,302 7,442 8,060 8,421 11,023 7,763 7,969 10,483 10,780 12,936 August 6,922 7,154 8,371 8,763 11,081 5,396 9,079 9,755 9,128 10,946 September 3,520 3,615 4,050 3,411 4,474 4,400 4,228 3,955 5,173 6,388 October 3,490 2,872 2,965 3,609 3,211 3,773 3,413 3,392 5,199 5,793 November 2,473 2,947 3,450 4,123 3,130 3,447 3,360 3,224 4,501 6,510 December 2,850 3,245 3,867 4,674 4,107 2,567 4,081 4,930 5,231 7,459 Total 53,375 54,496 60,293 60,620 72,478 62,732 69,245 72,350 80,309 102,694 VISITATION —FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 January 8,288 9,999 10,669 8,813 8,275 8,825 9,059 11,263 12,690 17,881 February 9,222 10,884 12,256 12,073 8,700 9,924 11,356 11,817 15,926 14,729 March 11,809 14,020 18,705 16,976 11,150 17,350 14,752 19,568 22,590 20,564 April 12,169 15,646 16,890 18,162 16,100 20,300 19,925 21,349 21,015 31,993 May 10,157 13,898 14,763 12,576 13,075 17,601 17,558 16,837 24,188 22,209 June 15,694 21,813 21,165 20,250 20,850 21,689 20,689 26,386 32,820 25,595 July 19,649 30,798 27,606 25,625 29,200 28,990 26,281 30,679 41,726 26,437 August 18,483 26,515 22,722 22,950 25,100 26,344 21,550 24,804 36,262 26,126 September 8,312 10,991 13,722 13,375 11,600 14,218 13,023 17,689 21,422 20,245 October 7,476 11,028 10,445 9,189 6,650 9,887 10,588 14,035 16,963 16,444 November 6,902 9,785 8,862 8,100 8,525 8,493 9,074 10,795 16,702 17,147 December 7,660 10,186 9,912 7,700 7,500 8,959 10,154 12,417 13,841 16,549 Total 135,821 185,563 187,717 175,789 166,725 192,580 184,009 217,639 276,145 255,919 124 VISITATION —FORT MATAN2AS NATIONAL MONUMENT 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 January 15,262 15,108 11,114 11,567 12,997 13,419 10,580 12,400 13,261 11,296 February 21,909 26,526 16,621 14,246 12,286 16,334 17,369 15,675 15,957 20,213 March 28,484 36,739 32,333 29,165 25,016 29,538 29,180 26,832 26,970 26,060 April 31,079 33,955 37,110 33,074 31,739 29,037 30,705 24,676 28,901 34,556 May 23,276 29,097 31,790 27,994 25,016 29,985 29,651 24,361 30,403 30,845 June 32,583 34,317 40,269 30,300 27,930 28,537** 30,947 25,001 24,650 31,748 July 28,692 34,530 66,979 44,465 30,371 28,413 32,852 31,098 30,664 37,345 August 16,796 30,345 34,006 28,413 26,177 24,941++ 26,946 21,150 24,496 31,880 September 17,147 22,352 22,673 35,166 17,695 18,464 20,948 18,001 17,282 24,007 October 16,236 14,857 16,182 16,380 15,178 15,186 16,160 15,972 15,896 21,799 November 14,060 10,123 13,363 12,110 14,386 9,891 +15,002 13,832 13,841 17,533 December 15,109 12,079 7,871 10,572 12,716* 10,498 9,867 12,705 8,469 13,823 Total 260,633 300,028 330,311 293,452 251,507 254,243 270,207 247,694 250,790 301,106 *A&P Builders began Stabilization of Fort and Shoreline Project 11/26/79. **St. Johns County began charging fees for vehicular traffic on beach 6/5/80. +11/23/81 Because President Reagan vetoed the budget presented to him by Congress, the Fort was closed at 2 p.m. and employees sent home. ++Stabilization of Fort and Shoreline completed August 11, 1980. VISITATION—FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 January 14,312 17,816 February 21,117 24,212 March 38,465 37,653 April 37,470 36,834 May 33,441 43,449 June 32,972 48,148 July 44,634 August 26,583 September 24,944 October 23,102 November 21,859 December 14,271 Total 333,170 125 APPENDIX H: Summary of Federal-City Relations 1819-1955. 126 City and Federal Cooperation A Summary of Federal-City Relations and Recommendations Concerning City and Federal Cooperation St. Augustine, Florida by C. R. Vinten Superintendent The following summary reviews the most important points of relationship between the Federal government and the City of St. Augustine. It also analyzes the critical problems facing the City, and points to a solution. Introductory Data: In 1819, all lands in the City were owned by the Sovereign of Spain, except those lands conveyed by grant or purchase. After 1821 a joint commission determined which lands were to be in federal and which in city ownership. The commission did not agree on all tracts. War Department surveys have defined boundaries of the Castillo military reservation for over 100 years. The Clements Survey of 1832 defined city and private properties. In late 1800's, private owners encroached on the reservation, and the Act of 1916 let owners purchase small areas of encroachment. Encroachments on the reservation by private owners continued through 1951, but law enforcement result ed in prompt removal. Federal Cooperation with City Officials and Private Owners. The license of 1908 by the War Department gave the City authority to pave Fort Marion Circle, and the City assumed the responsibility for maintenance and preventing further private encroachments on federal lands. In 1916 private owners were permitted to buy reservation lands on which they had encroached. March 1941, the National Park Service urged the City to secure a competent plan for the Bayfront 127 and Fort Marion circle proposals. Extension of Bennett Hotel northward was also referred to by the Service as a potential "bottleneck" and the City was advised to acquire this vacant property for future street re-location. Construction of the hotel extension was authorized by the City. July 23, 1943, letter to Mayor O. D. Wolfe by Superintendent Vinten suggested that the City make surveys and submit plans for Bay Street- Fort Marion Circle project. The nature of the information needed was outlined. No action was taken by City. March-August 1950, Service had several conferences with Mayor Ronald Jackson regarding a Bayfront Parking Area. Director Wirth sent City Planner Irving Root to make a 4 day study of city problem - September 14-17, 1950. Proposed to offer service of Mr. Root "free" if City would pay expenses. Estimated cost $500 for overall plan for city traffic and parking, and $3000 for comprehensive city plan including: utilities, traffic and park ing, proposed essential improvements, architectural standards and a modern zoning ordinance. No action was taken by the City. Negotiations were promoted by the St. Augustine Historical Society. June 17, 1952, meeting of Chamber of Commerce Committee with Castillo staff. Three parking area solutions suggested by Committee, which were drawn to scale later by Superintendent Vinten and discussed with Chamber President Walt Freeman, and judged impractical. City Commission Resolution of June 26, 1952, on congestion and hazards of Fort Marion Circle forwarded to Director of National Park Service. The Director's reply emphasized the serious congestion and accident record on San Marcos Ave., West King Street, and the Plaza, compared to the minor problem on Fort Marion Circle, in letter to City Clerk of August 27, 1952. This letter expressed the policy of the Service with regard to any further encroachment to the north and east of Ft. Marion Circle, and referred to "bottlenecks" created by private construction. July-August 1953, Commissioners Aubrey Davis and Hobson Cone made requests to the National Park Service for comments on the Smith and Gillespie Bayfront Parking area plan. The study was made during the heavy travel summer 128 of 1953, and a technical report submitted to City at an open meeting of the Commission. In general, the study was criticized and accomplished no useful purpose. May 14, 1954 letter of Superintendent to Mayor Aubrey Davis confirmed conference with Commis sioners Davis, Cone-Orier. Letter called for staking of the Lauper plan for Ft. Marion Circle and a joint study of alignment and location on the ground. Part of the alignment was staked by the City, but no further requests were received to inspect the staked lines. May 1955. Exchange of letters, - Mayor Brett asked cooperation of the Service and Superinten dent Vinten invited the Mayor to call on him at any time. (The above summary points to 57 years of federal cooperation with official St. Augustine and its citizens in granting valuable privileges, deeding the public lands of the reservation lands to private citizens, conferring with local officials and committees, making studies and reports of a technical nature, and advising the city against unwise and impractical development proposals. Over the years, the City has been advised to prevent the establishment of costly "bottlenecks." The national monument has not been responsible for the lack of planning.) Requests by the Federal Government for Cooperation of City Officials and Citizens in the Protection of the Castillo Area. 1) In July 1949, the Superintendent requested Mayor Drazba, City Commissioner Cy Davis, and Engineer Ponton to cancel a City sign permit issued to Bennett Hotel for a large neon sign encroaching on monument lands, and also to remove the city guide station from the area and to enforce city solicitation ordinances. The request was refused and the authority of the federal government was questioned. No cooperation was offered. 2) May 1950 the City was requested to make a statement concerning the acquisition of the Drew lot, proposed under HR-1026, by Congressman Herlong. City concurred, but later rescinded action. A compromise proposal was later submitted. The City made a counter-offer to endorse HR-1026 if the National Park Service would deed Fort Marion 129 Circle, and all federal lands beyond, to the City. The counter proposal was obviously unreasonable. 3) September 27, 1953; meeting with Senator Smathers, City Commissioners, and Castillo staff. City presented Bayfront plan and sketch for Fort Marion Circle widening. Mayor Aubrey Davis pre sented the City's desire to have Fort Marion Circle, and all lands beyond it, deeded to the City. Several questions were asked by the Senator, concluding with a question about what the City was offering the National Park Service for these protective lands and loss of controls? There was nothing to offer. Superintendent Vinten merely pointed out the need for a revision of the northerly portion of the Bayfront Plan, as trash and sand deposits and erosion of Castillo seawalls was imminent if the Smith and Gillespie plan were carried out. No practical plan revisions were discussed or submitted by the City after that con ference. (Research in the field of city cooperation with the National Park Service produces only two requests by the Service for official City cooperation, both of which were refused; and a third request which the City agreed to grant, contingent upon the conveyance of valuable protec tive lands to the City as a gift. The study of the records reveals numerous attempts to encroach on federal lands and efforts to break down the authority and ownership of the United States; such as the June- July 1951 effort of City and County Attorneys in Federal Court, Jacksonville, to claim that the National Park Service had no jurisdiction on Fort Marion Circle and that boundaries were in dispute. (The court refused to hear the arguments.) 4) The National Park Service has had excellent cooperation from the St. Augustine Police Depart ment, the press and radio, the St. Augustine Historical Society, and many progressive citizens of the community who have come to the defense of the national monument when threats to its integrity have been proposed. CONCLUSION: The above summary merely covers a few of the highlights which apply most closely to the problem at hand. That problem is: 1) In a request for cooperation of the National Park Service, what is the definition of coopera tion which the City has in mind? 130 In addition to the above examples of cooperation, the Service has spent about $1,500,000 on public service to millions of visitors; and has stabilized, protected and maintained the area as a national attraction for 20 years. Close to a quarter of a million historical leaflets are taken by visitors and mailed all over the United States every year. What can the city do in recognition of this cooperation? 2) Is the City willing to secure the services of one of the most competent City Planners in the United States to solve the city-wide traffic, parking, and hazard problems; and to present such a plan to the National Park Service if such a plan calls for cooperation of the Service? The City now has a tourist business estimated as worth $15,000,000 a year. The City can not afford to continue to make costly errors which are a result of unwise developments, and the National Park Service can not be counted upon to contribute to further errors, or agree to further encroachments on the national monument area. Neither the City nor the National Park Service can afford to experiment with cheap plans or with amateur and inexperienced planners. The need for historical conservation must be recognized by the City and the National Park Service as a value which the entire nation can rightly claim. There is no economy in piecemeal planning for an asset of these proportions. There are irreplace able values here which can easily be lost. There must be a recognition of the fact that while progress means change, - change does not always mean progress; and changes in the historic waterfront or in the historic town, should be made only after consultation with the best planning genius available in the United States. Anything less than that will be less than the Ancient City deserves; and any plan by unqualified planners will not inspire any great amount of interest by the National Park Service. 3) If such a plan were secured by the City is there any assurance that it would be adopted as a guide for an orderly and economical city growth? 131 If the City is convinced that the science of city planning is essential to the future prosperity of the community, then an invest ment in a city plan would be sound. The National Park Service would then have assurance that its program for preserving and interpreting the national monument would be supplemented by a similar program of the City, namely, to preserve and interpret Colonial St. Augustine. On the other hand, if the City continues to plan on a piecemeal basis, and to adopt dangerous and immature plans, the course of "so-called" progress, as the history of the past few decades has proven, will lead into more "bottlenecks" and "bypasses." In a few years the City will be confronted with a demand for by-passing of State Road A-l-A traffic, which may be forced to follow US-1 as far as Crescent Beach. As A-l-A traffic is principally composed of recreational or sightseeing travelers the plan for retaining it involves a study of the entire route through town in order to provide for increasing loads. A most important phase of the town plan is the one related to the preservation of Colonial St. Augustine in a way that will assure greater attractiveness and at the same time provide for the heavier use which the future will bring. The problem is one which calls for the experience and skill of the best planning talent in the United States: One who has the vision and ingenuity to pro vide for progress without sacrificing antiquity and charm, and one who has the ability to dis tinguish between constructive change and the alternative of destructive and unsound develop ment. An investment in an adequate long-range plan for the City is the foundation upon which to build a zoning ordinance, a long range plan for utilities, and a plan for preserving and interpreting Colonial St. Augustine as an im portant milestone in the history of the entire western hemisphere. There will never be a better time nor a cheaper time to start such a constructive and far-seeing program. In fact, time is running out on St. Augustine. 132 The errors of the past should be adequate proof of the urgent need for an orderly plan for the future of St. Augustine. The City can be assured of the continued cooperation of the National Park Service in a progressive and safe objective of this kind. 133 BIBLIOGRAPHY MANUSCRIPT MATERIAL Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. Harpers Ferry Center: National Park Service, Branch of Archival and Library Services. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas National Monument correspondence files. St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. Boxes 1-25, Corps of Engineers. War Department Records. St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. Photographic Collection, 1912. St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas National Monument. Annual Report Files. St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas National Monument. Historians Monthly Narrative Report. St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas National Monument. Superintendent's Monthly Report Files. St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas National Monument. The National Park Service History of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas National Monument, 1973-1979. St. Augustine, Florida. Fort Matanzas National Monument. Boxes 1-3, Corps of Engineers. War Department Records. Washington, D.C. National Archives. Record Group 79. Records of the War Department. Washington, D.C. National Archives. Record Group 79. Records of the National Park Service. Washington, D.C. National Archives. Record Group 92. Records of the Quartermaster Department. GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS Deagan, Kathleen A. "An Assessment Of Archaeological Collections At The Castillo de San Marcos, St. Augustine, Florida." Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University, October 1975. 135 Deagan, Kathleen A. "Archeological Investigation of the Fort Matanzas Interior-1978." Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University, 1978. Deagan, Kathleen A. "Archeological Investigations At Fort Matanzas National Monument." Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University, February 1976. Deagan, Kathleen A. "Excavations At The Castillo de San Marcos." Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University, December 1980. Deagan, Kathleen A. Excavations at the Castillo de San Marcos St. Augustine, Florida: Archeological Data in Support of Architectural Stabilization. Tallahassee: Florida State University, December 1980. Deagan, Kathleen A. "Report on Monitor/Salvage Activities During the 1980 Architectural Stabilization Procedures at Fort Matanzas National Monument." Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University, April 1980. Executive Order, Organization of Executive Agencies. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office, 1933. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. An Administrative History of Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park by John C. Paige and Jerome A. Greene. Denver, 1983. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas National Monument Historical Research Management Plan, by Luis R. Arana, David C. Dutcher, George M. Strock, and F. Ross Holland, Jr. Washington, D.C, 1967. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Centennial Edition National Park Service Officials March 1, 1972, by Howard W. Baker. Washington, 1972. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Historic Structure Report For Castillo de San Marcos National Monument St. John's County, Florida, by Edwin C. Bearss and John C. Paige. Denver, 1983. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "History of Legislation Relating to the National Park System Through the 82nd Congress," by Edmund B. Rogers. Washington, 1958. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "MISSION 66 Prospectus. Washington, 1956. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument." 136 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "MISSION 66 Prospectus. Washington, 1956. Fort Matanzas National Monument. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Notes On The Excavation of Colonial Floors In The Sally Port And Guardroom Area At Castillo De San Marcos," by Albert C. Manucy. St. Augustine, 1960. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "Statement for Interpretation And Visitor Services for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments." St. Augustine, 1984. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Terreplein Construction Fort Marion Notations on Its Original Character, by Albert C. Manucy. St. Augustine, 1939. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "The War Department Years, 1821-1933," Historic Structure Report For Fort Matanzas National Monument St. John's County, Florida, by Edwin C. Bearss. Denver, 1980. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "Administrative History as a Management Tool," Trends, by Barry Mackintosh. Washington, 1983. Williams, Maurice. "Report on Monitoring of Architectural Stabilization Procedures at Fort Matanzas." Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University, 1980. ORAL HISTORY TRANSCRIPTS AND INTERVIEWS Aikens, Martha B. National Park Service. Washington, D.C. Telephone Interview, 12 August, 1985. Chatelain, Verne E. Retired Historian, Silver Spring, Maryland. Interview 26 February 1985. Davenport, L. Theodore. Transcript of Oral History Interview of L. Theodore Davenport by Albert Manucy. Harpers Ferry Center: National Park Service, Branch of Archival and Library Services, February 15, 1971. Griffin, Barbara J. National Park Service. St. Augustine, Florida. Telephone Interview, 14 August 1985. Kahler, Herbert E. Alexandria, Virginia. Telephone Interview, 5 August 1985. Kahler, Herbert E. Transcript of Oral History Interview of Herbert E. Kahler by Albert Manucy. Harpers Ferry Center, National Park Service, Branch of Archival and Library Services, July 1, 1971. 137 Kahler, Herbert E. Transcript of Oral History Interview of Herbert E. Kahler by Luis Arana. National Park Service, Harpers Ferry Center: Branch of Archival and Library Services, January 20, 1975. Manucy, Albert C. Transcript of Reminiscences to Charles B. Hosmer, Jr., Harpers Ferry Center: National Park Service, Branch of Archival and Library Services, November 11, 1972. Roberts, Bertrum C. Transcript of Oral history Interview of Bertrum C. Roberts by S. Herbert Evison. Harpers Ferry Center: National Park Service, Branch of Archival and Library Services, March 26, 1971. Schesventer, George F. Transcript of Oral History Interview of George F. Schesventer by S. Herbert Evison. Harpers Ferry Center: National Park Service, Branch of Archival and Library Services, November 8, 1973. Vinten, C. Raymond. Transcript of Oral History Interview of C. Raymond Vinten by S. Herbert Evison. Harpers Ferry Center: National Park Service, Branch of Archival and Library Services, April 6, 1971. UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL Gluckman, Stephen J. "An Archeological Survey Of Fort Matanzas National Monument." (unpublished) 1966. St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, "Conservation And Reutilization Of Castillo de San Marcos And Fort Matanzas," by Luis R. Arana, 1984 (Xeroxed). St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, "One Who Wasn't Pillaged," by Luis R. Arana, undated (Xeroxed). St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, "Castillo de San Marcos National Monument Centennial/Tricentennial Calendar 1972," (Xeroxed). St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, "Schedule of Events for 400th Anniversary Celebration." (Xeroxed). U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Time Line," by C. Craig Frazier. (Denver: Denver Service Center, November 1984), (unpublished). 138 BOOKS, PERIODICALS AND NEWSPAPERS Arana, Luis R. "Notes On Fort Ma tan/.as National Monument." LI Escribano 18 (1981): 45-73. A Winter From Home. New York: John F. Trow [1852J. Barbour, George M. Florida For Tourists, Invalids, And Settlers. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1882; reprint ed., Jacksonville: Quadricentennial Edition of the Floridiana Facsimile and Reprint Series, 1964. Bill, Ledyard. A Winter In Florida. New York: Wood & Holbrook, 1870. Bryant, William Cullen. Letters Of A Traveler; Or Notes Of Things Seen In Europe And America. New York: George P. Putnam, 1850. Colburn, David R. Racial Change and Community Crisis St. Augustine, Florida, 1877-1980. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985. East, Omega G. "Apache Prisoners In Fort Marion, 1886-1887," El Escribano 6 (1969). Eagan, D. The Florida Settler, Or Immigrant's Guide. Tallahassee: Office of the Floridian, 1873. Fennimore, Constance. "The Ancient City, Part I." Harpers New Monthly Magazine. December 1874. Graham, Thomas. The Awakening Of St. Augustine: The Anderson Family and the Oldest City 1821-1924. St. Augustine, Florida: St Augustine Historical Society, 1978. King, Thomas F., Patricia Parker Hickman and Gary Berg. Anthropology In Historic Preservation: Caring For Culture's Clutter. New York: Academic Press, 1977. Murray, Amelia M. Letters From The United States, Cuba and Canada. New York: G.P. Putnam & Company, 1856. Pratt, Richard Henry. Battlefield And Classroom: Four Decades with the American Indian, 1867-1904, ed. by Robert M. Utley. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964. "Rambler." Guide To Florida. New York: The American News Company, 1875; reprint ed. , Jacksonville: Floridiana Facsimile and Reprint Series, 1964. Sewall, R. K. Sketches Of St. Augustine. New York: George P. Putnam, 1848; reprint ed., Gainesville: The University Presses of Florida, 1976. 139 Sylvia Sunshine [A.M. Brooks]. Petals Plucked From Sunny Climes. Nashville: Southern Methodist Publishing House, 1880. The Florida Metropolis, June 11, 1921. 140 ILLUSTRATIONS 141 Illustration 1. Major General William M. Black, U.S. Army Chief of Engineers, 1916-1919, advocate of preservation of the Castillo and Fort Matanzas. Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. to Illustration 2. Left to right: H.S. Wyllie (guide), Sergeant George M. Brown (caretaker), Mrs. William J. Harris, William J. Harris (curator, St. Augustine Historical Society), John G. Harris (father of William J.), unidentified guide, circa 1915-1916. Courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society. 0^ Illustration 3. Dr. Dewitt Webb Courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society. 146 Illustration 4. Officials of St. Augustine Historical Society left to right: Emily L. Wilson (historian), Albert C. Manucy (librarian) and David R. Dunham (president), October 1951. Courtesy of the St. Augustine Historical Society. 148 Illustration 5. Presentation of Barcia's History of Florida, by X.L. Pellicer (center), President St. Augustine Historical Society, to Dr. Fernando Rubio (left) and Dr. Francisco Sinteo Obrador (right), April 1956. Courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society. 150 Illustration 6. Verne E. Chatelain, Chief, Historical Division, National Park Service, Courtesy of Verne E. Chatelain. Courtesy of Verne E. Chatelain. 152 Illustration 7. Herbert E. Kahler, Custodian, Acting Superintendent, Superintendent 1933-1939. Courtesy of Herbert E. Kahler. 154 Illustration 8. Top: Edward D. Freeland, Superintendent 1939-1941, Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments, October 20, 1939. Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. Bottom: C. Raymond Vinten, left, Superintendent, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument 1942-1961, Fort Matanzas National Monument, 1953-1961, December 31, 1959. Edward J. Eaton, right, Superintendent, Fort Matanzas National Monument, 1942-1953; receiving commendable service award, December 31, 1959. Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 156 Illustration 9. Top: Howard M. Johnson, left, land donor, Fort Matanzas National Monument, October 19, 1962. Bertrum C. Roberts, right, Superintendent, Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments, 1961-1965, October 19, 1962. Bottom: L. Theodore Davenport, Superintendent, Castillo and Fort Matanzas National Monuments, 1966-1971. Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 158 Illustration 10. Top: George F. Schesventer, left, Superintendent, Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments, 1971-1980, September 27, 1973. Robert C. Hall, right, maintenance, receiving service pin, September 27, 1973. Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. Center: Martha B. Aikens, Superintendent, Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments, 1980-1983. Courtesy of Martha B. Aikens. Bottom: Barbara J. Griffin, left, Superintendent, 1984 to present; and Luis R. Arana, right, historian (receiving 30 year award plaque), Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas, April 25, 1985. Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 160 Illustration 11. Top: Albert C. Manucy, Historian, 1959. Bottom: Luis R. Arana, Historian, 1962. Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 162 Illustration 12. Top: Tressa Y. and Howard M. Johnson, land donors, Fort Matanzas National Monument, circa 1940s. Bottom: Maintenance worker James Shope and son, May 29, 1972. Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 164 Illustration 13. Top: Robert Batie, maintenance man now retired, painting iron cannon tube, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, February 15, 1974. Bottom: Replanking ravelin bridge at Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, January 16, 1974. Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 166 Illustration 14. Top: Commemorative stamp issue ceremony on 400th anniversary, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, August 28, 1965. Bottom: Presentation of statue of San Marcos by Spanish Minister of Industry, Gregorio Lopez Bravo (right), to Staff Historian Albert C. Manucy (left) and Monsignor John J. Burns, Cathedral of St. Augustine, during 400th anniversary year, November 27, 1965. Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 168 Illustration 15. Spanish Minister of Information and Tourism Alfredo Sanchez Bella, presenting a painting at one event celebrating the 300th anniversary of building the Castillo. Left to right Superintendent George F. Schesventer; Spanish Consul General Vicente Ramirez Montesinos-Miami; Senor Bella; and Flagler Foundation Director Lawrence Lewis, September 8, 1972. Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 170 Illustration 16. Top: The Castillo de San Marcos from the southwest, 1886. Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 172 Illustration 17. Top: Courtyard and stairway to terreplein looking southeast, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, April 18, 1947. Bottom: Courtyard looking northeast, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, April 13, 1960. Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 174 Illustration 18, Top: Archeological investigation of the courtyard conducted by Jean C. Harrington, January 28, 1953. Bottom: View of terreplein and San Carlos watchtower, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, July 3, 1955. Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 176 Illustration 19. Top: Aerial view of Fort Matanzas National Monument, 1942. Bottom: Ocean front looking south, Fort Matanzas National Monument, October 1971. Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 178 Illustration 20. Top: Visitor Center and ranger residence completed by the Works Project Administration, 1937. Bottom: Fort Matanzas, southwest quadrant, December 16, 1981. Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 180 Illustration 21. Matanzas Queen visitor ferry to Fort Matanzas, 1980. Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 182 As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has basic responsibilities to protect and conserve our land and water, energy and minerals, fish and wildlife, parks and recreation areas, and to ensure the wise use of all these resources. The Department also has major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. NPS D-13, July 1986 I 1 I i